They are looking at BMW now.

 

I can admire the end product at a purely technical level, like you might admire the ovens at Auschwitz. But "just following orders" to engineer whatever you are asked for is not a defense. Obeying illegal orders makes you just as much a criminal as the boss.

Exactly, It's not a defense but there are levels of responsibility in everything. I do admit to having some empathy (but no sympathy for their pain or punishment) for those who chose to do the unethical, wrong, even illegal acts in certain circumstances when the pressure to do that act is overwhelming but not evil as in Auschwitz. I'm sure it's part of my psychological eval that someone liked when they asked me to sign an oath and swear to things.

In this case I can see how the vast majority of engineers would have no idea they were working on something like this even if they wrote most of the code for it. The architect (someone with complete design authority) of a cheat design could have easily compartmentalized the code/mechanical structure into many sections and sent innocent requests of variable X to be placed in location Y on this module, variable A to be placed in with structure B in another modules, etc ... for a debug or simulation function with hidden compartmentalized code done by others with no clue. These types of functions usually have less eyes on them than the operational code and are usually a good place to hide things. Because I don't think this is a one-liner hack and until I see evidence otherwise the execution of the cheat looks like good engineering (at a purely technical level).

 

Exactly, It's not a defense but there are levels of responsibility in everything. I do admit to having some empathy (but no sympathy for their pain or punishment) for those who chose to do the unethical, wrong, even illegal acts in certain circumstances when the pressure to do that act is overwhelming but not evil as in Auschwitz. I'm sure it's part of my psychological eval that someone liked when they asked me to sign an oath and swear to things.

In this case I can see how the vast majority of engineers would have no idea they were working on something like this even if they wrote most of the code for it. The architect (someone with complete design authority) of a cheat design could have easily compartmentalized the code/mechanical structure into many sections and sent innocent requests of variable X to be placed in location Y on this module, variable A to be placed in with structure B in another modules, etc ... for a debug or simulation function with hidden compartmentalized code done by others with no clue. These types of functions usually have less eyes on them than the operational code and are usually a good place to hide things. Because I don't think this is a one-liner hack and until I see evidence otherwise the execution of the cheat looks like good engineering (at a purely technical level).

I think it was Rush Limbaugh who said yesterday that the engineer who designed this code should at least get a trip to the White House.

 

They are looking at BMW now.

The BMW responses on the allegation are very interesting. It never said that the X3 in question didn't have the software fix. Instead, it said that the X5 passed the test.

 

I think it was Rush Limbaugh who said yesterday that the engineer who designed this code should at least get a trip to the White House.

but only after that person works for us.

 

This is a failure of ethics from the top down. Its especially a failure of the ethics of the engineers who, despite all of the specious dabbling in $$$ performance can and must be one of the last bulwarks of reality. You can debate all day on the specifics of whether the specs were achievable, lawful or legitimate. The fact that somewhere, somehow it got down to the ECU programmers to add fraudulent code is alarming - at least to me. I've always been able to distinguish noise from the suits from reality - and what I have shipped actually conforms to reality. These days, we are threatened with the prospect that reality is fungible. If I won't fraud the system, they'll find someone that will and someone will make money.

Its all great! Unless of course, you are relying on reality to get you across that bridge, fly you to your destination or have the right medication available when you need it.

 

But "just following orders" to engineer whatever you are asked for is not a defense. Obeying illegal orders makes you just as much a criminal as the boss.

But what if you as the engineer have every reason to believe that what you are supposed to be engineering for is a completely bogus and pointless specification?

To many excessive , unrealistic and unprovable to be of any good emissions specifications are about as valid of design expectation as to be asking for the vehicle to look up your horoscope for the day and change its driving characteristics in response to it.

I for one have very little concern for obeying rules or designing for what I solidly believe to be irrational, unrealistic and or largely imagined scenarios/conditions when creating something. To be honest I suspect that every single one of us also have similar feeling toward certain topics and or expectations related to belief systems that don't follow solid what you see as valid reasoning.

 

This is a failure of ethics from the top down. Its especially a failure of the ethics of the engineers who, despite all of the specious dabbling in $$$ performance can and must be one of the last bulwarks of reality. You can debate all day on the specifics of whether the specs were achievable, lawful or legitimate. The fact that somewhere, somehow it got down to the ECU programmers to add fraudulent code is alarming - at least to me. I've always been able to distinguish noise from the suits from reality - and what I have shipped actually conforms to reality. These days, we are threatened with the prospect that reality is fungible. If I won't fraud the system, they'll find someone that will and someone will make money.

Its all great! Unless of course, you are relying on reality to get you across that bridge, fly you to your destination or have the right medication available when you need it.

While I agree I would be surprised if the level of knowledge was at the coding implementation level simply from the fact that it didn't leak from a person with ethics (there has to be at least one on the engineering staff) but was discovered almost by accident by people who wanted to prove the technology actually was clean. The key for a Blackhat project like this is compartmentalization. Very few people with a lot to lose know the details and there is little to gain in full disclosure for VW, the German government, car companies in general or even the US government who would likely want to keep the actual method under wraps.

 

The fact that somewhere, somehow it got down to the ECU programmers to add fraudulent code is alarming

I think the issue is more with management, in terms of the specific decisions they made here (and they should know the laws and consequences of their decisions if caught) and the corporate culture they have instilled.

I am not sure if an average engineer is sophisticated enough to understand that. They were likely to do a job and I don't think if they should be expected to look up the law and figured out the right thing to do.

On the flip side, if they did know the law and did it anyway, they should be brought into the court.

 

I went back to the CAA and there actually is no disclosure requirement. Really surprised.

 

But what if you as the engineer have every reason to believe that what you are supposed to be engineering for is a completely bogus and pointless specification?

If you don't like the law, ignore it?

Society needs laws and good processes for creating and changing those laws. Our constitution does a decent job, but some real stinkers still get through. Willfully breaking a stupid law is something we can all consider as individuals, but it's hard to see how this would ever be a good corporate strategy.

 

If you don't like the law, ignore it?

Actually, if this ever goes to criminal court, a jury could decide to ignore the law. Theoretically.

 

Actually, if this ever goes to criminal court, a jury could decide to ignore the law. Theoretically.

The chances of that happening in this case,

 

Willfully breaking a stupid law is something we can all consider as individuals, but it's hard to see how this would ever be a good corporate strategy.

I have always assumed it was standard corporate practice. Some ruling entity puts what you see as a unfair or unrealistic regulation on you that you have little reason to believe or agree with so you find a way around it.

As I see it it's one of the oldest games in the book and we play it all the time on all levels of our lives and society.

Look at how many major laws have been implemented and were assumed to be good and correct until they created so much hindrance for too little of justification behind them that they ultimately got repealed.

Our own constitution is supposed to be the very base foundation of our countries primary laws and rules yet it has had amendments repealed due to mass outcry against the additional laws that were put into effect.

I find that to be pretty strong proof that just because its a law does not mean it's a good and realistic one that everyone will believe in and follow blindly without question. Especially so if that law is seen to be putting a irrational or unrealistic burden/restriction on the people it affects.

 

Turns out the rules and regulations that EPA creates have very little advertized public input or say in their creation and implementation.

http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/basics-regulatory-process

I find this law enactment process a bit too far out of the public hands for me to feel good about.

 

And yet, those of us who have to breath the results if the law weren't there tend to support it. Ever smell ozone on a sunny day with no cloud cover? I have.

 

It's only not advertised if one doesn't pay attention. Each and every law is passed by Congress, who's schedule and record is public knowledge.

 

And yet, those of us who have to breath the results if the law weren't there tend to support it. Ever smell ozone on a sunny day with no cloud cover? I have.

Most of them have not.
Trying not be political here as clean air has no political affiliation.

There is a reason Nixon formed the EPA, the country then was where China is today. Smog was so thick in cities like LA you could watch it bounce off tall building. We were killing country with filth and everyone was on-board to stop it.

When the Clean Air Act first became law in 1970, the Senate passed it without a single nay vote. Only one representative had voted against the bill.

During the signing ceremony, President Richard Nixon said, "As we sign this bill in this room, we can look back and say, in the Roosevelt Room on the last day of 1970, we signed a historic piece of legislation that put us far down the road toward a goal that Theodore Roosevelt, 70 years ago, spoke eloquently about: a goal of clean air, clean water, and open spaces for the future generations of America."

Source: Washington Post

 

To me topics and rules like this are the ones that need mass public input to most.

I'm not against clean air by any means am against excessive rules and regulations that have very little additional gains behind them despite adding substantial cost and further loss of efficiency to equipment I have to use.

 

The CAA is the law. The CFR is the regulation That accomplishes the tasks to be within the law as the regulating agency interpets the law.

Many a government agency thinks their interpetation is absolutely correct only to be found wrong in a court of law.

Look how many times the IRS lost in court