Slashdot Mirror
Volkswagen Diesel Scandal Logistics Imply Sizable Conspiracy
Guinnessy writes with an interesting analysis of the Volkswagen software cheating scandal: Physics Today's Charles Day takes a look at how diesel engines work, and why it's clear it's not just a lone software engineer who came up with the cheat. "...[S]oftware is impotent without hardware. To recognize when a car was being tested and not driven, the defeat device required data from a range of sensors -- sensors that a noncheating car might not need.... Whereas it's conceivable that a single software engineer, directed by a single manager, could have secretly written and uploaded the code that ran the defeat device, installing its associated hardware would require a larger and more diverse team of conspirators," he says.
I've worked as a partner for some car companies in both the US and the EU, and I know for a fact that the firmware that goes into their control systems is very tightly controlled, requiring sign-offs from senior execs for design and feature changes. There's no way code this critical could have simply been dropped in by some R&D leads. No. Way.
If you put any thought into this at all, you realize it is a massive conspiracy. Other automakers add expensive, space consuming devices to eliminate NO pollution. These is no way a single programmer could have made a change and all the engineers would go "Look, we don't need all the extra hardware, it passes the test!" Lots of people would notice immediately during the design phase.
At what point does a group of people, perhaps thinking they're working to create something good, but that actually results in something that maybe isn't so good, become a "conspiracy"?
Let's look to open source efforts like GNOME 3 and Firefox 4 (and later versions). Here we have well-established software products, with many users, and extensive communities built around them. While they'll take outside contributions, stewardship of such projects is quite tightly controlled. Yet at some point, very bad decisions start being made by the developers of the products, and not necessarily in bad faith. There comes a point where some influential members of the community think it's important to target "average users" or "mobile users" or perhaps to compete with a similar product from another vendor by imitating it.
But by doing so, they end up completely trashing their own products. A desktop environment like GNOME 3 becomes almost completely unusable on the desktop by power users, who make up the bulk of its community. A browser like Firefox throws away an intuitive and usable UI for one that's nonsensical in most ways, while long-standing performance problems, resource usage excesses and bugs remain unfixed.
Yes, many people can be and are involved in such debacles. But do we know that they were all acting maliciously? Do we even know that they actually knew what they were doing? Somebody pushing for Firefox's awful Australis UI, for example, may have thought he was helping design a good, novel UI. But rational outsiders and Firefox users thought very differently, clearly. That's why Firefox is now at only about 7% to 8% of the browser market, when it used to be above 30%.
We can't deny that GNOME 3, and Firefox version 4 and later, have been project-level failures involving many people. But despite the negative and unwanted outcomes, it's difficult to say with certainty that there was any sort of "conspiracy" involved. It could very well be people working together in good faith, who unfortunately only end up creating a very awful outcome.
Modern cars use a system to stabilise the car in the event that one or more wheels starts to lose adhesion - commonly called things like ESP/DSP/ESC
The car wants to know when it's on a dyno or other testing device where only one set of wheels move, and the others do not - if this were NOT the case, it would assume that the rear wheels have lost adhesion with the road, and will serious interfere with the power provided to the front wheels.
So "the defeat device required data from a range of sensors -- sensors that a noncheating car might not need" is totally and utterly rubbish, it likely needs a single line of code like this:
> if(EngineMode.Test){ ... do something to improve emissions ... }
Furthermore, many cars may already have a "very low emissions" mode or similar - there may not be a "special" mode specifically for EPA tests which a different profile for timing, fuel injection etc. - the cars computer essentially changes the "configuration" of the engine on the fly, based on driving conditions, driver input, gear, fuel quality, engine feedback etc - and it does all this during NORMAL operation.
If a "high efficiency / low emissions mode" already existed, then the code could be further reduced to
> if (EngineMode.Test ){ Engine.PerformanceProfile = LowEmissionsProfile }
Of course, it's unlikely that there would be a high level language available to engineers to make it quite so readable as above - but hopefully the code illustrates the point.
FWIW I strongly suspect that the "low emission profile" in place here in VW *IS* a "special" doctored one to fool emissions tests, but the detection of actually being in a test? Probably already existed.
I think the explanation as to why diesel engines create more nitrogen oxides and how the EGR works was simple and on point, but the conclusion not so much. I drive a diesel myself, but it is a 2006 model, it doesn't have adblue injection, my exhaust system only has a catalytic converter and a particle filter (and an EGR, of course). Even though it is an old model, like most cars since then it has more than enough sensors to do what VW did: individual wheel speeds for the ABS, steering wheel angle for the ESC, multiple sunshine sensors, front and rear suspension angles for the headlight height control, multiple temperature and pressures sensors on both the intake and exhaust, multiple flow rate sensors, mass air flow sensors, multiple sensors in the cooling system etc.
That's why I find the article a bit thin on new information, I'm certain the embedded engineers at Bosch/Delphi/Siemens/etc. could have done that with far less information that a more modern car has.
Did they all knew about it? Probably. Did they made hardware efforts to cheat? I don't believe it yet, that's the point of cheating, "passing" the test without having to add new hardware, there is plenty of data that can tell you if the car is really moving or in a test chamber.
To recognize when a car was being tested and not driven, the defeat device required data from a range of sensors—sensors that a noncheating car might not need.
At what point does a group of people, perhaps thinking they're working to create something good, but that actually results in something that maybe isn't so good, become a "conspiracy"?
The moment it becomes obvious that what they are attempting is impossible and they start looking for illegal ways to circumvent a test. At that precise point they should have stopped and done something else.
There is no real grey area here where people weren't fully aware of what they were doing and at no time were they under any illusion about the legality. The people who implemented this are professional engineers who knew(or should have known) what the rules were and decided to go ahead anyway. This isn't a piece of consumer software where there are no federal laws involved. This wasn't a piece of software where what seemed like a good idea ultimately didn't work. No, they intentionally and with premeditation committed this fraud. Stop it with trying to excuse what they did.
I think that you missed the point of the previous post. It could be that many people involved thought that they were adding a performance function.
I did not miss the point. The point was wrong. They did not think they were adding a performance function. That's not how it this stuff gets developed. They would have known if this idea worked or not before it left R&D.
Granted, at some point it clearly crossed the line.
And that is where they should have stopped. No equivocation is necessary. The moment they realized it was illegal/impossible they should have stopped. It was reasonable to try to come up with a clever way to avoid the cost of adding a urea injection system but the would have known if this was feasible before the idea left the R&D lab. Once it got to the production engineers, there is no possible way they didn't know that what they were doing.
They may have known, but what was the alternative? Get fired, and in a manner that ensures they will never work in their field again?
The alternative is that you don't commit a crime. Why is that so hard to understand? This was FRAUD, plain and simple. If my boss comes to me and asks me to commit a crime so the company will make more money my answer is to gather my personal effects and seek employment elsewhere.
We are not talking about engineers who lacked options. The auto industry isn't one where they can get blackballed from every working again. These are well paid, educated people who knew (or should have known) what they were doing and decided to commit a crime.
Or go to the regulator and media, bring down the responsible parties, and get sued so hard their grandchildren will be paying the lawyer bills?
You can do that OR you can just leave. Either option is better than committing a crime.