Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 151 posts

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#71

Post by tehwebguy »

Sunset wrote: post #49
mabbo wrote: post #9

While I certainly don't support the 'rogue engineer' excuse that VW originally gave everyone, the idea does bring up an interesting point. An engineer did write this code. Almost certainly, many of them, working together. Now, their managers told them it was okay to do this, maybe that legal had given the go-ahead or that they had to do it to keep their jobs... But it's still pretty clear that this was not right. The…

>In my opinion (and I welcome disagreement and debate) engineers have an obligation to say 'no' to wiring unethical code. I respectfully disagree. Engineers have an obligation to do whatever is asked of them by management. If that means building nuke-hand-grenades so be it. Being an engineer( be it software or mechanics ) should be a morally neutral thing. Do the job and keep your morals out of it. This is the only w…

You are still a human when you are at work.

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#72

Post by denzil_correa »

bambax wrote: post #48

> In 2015, regulators realized that diesel Volkswagens and Audis were emitting several times the legal limit of nitrogen oxides (NOx) during real-world driving tests. But one problem regulators confronted was that they couldn’t point to specific code that allowed the cars to do this. They could prove the symptom (high emissions on the road), but they didn’t have concrete evidence of the cause (code that circumvented…

Someone finally said it. Basically, the test is to be blamed too. Like any other test - you should randomly pick up cars from the road and test for emissions. I really don't see why the regulator can't do something like it.

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#73

Post by unityByFreedom »

vinceguidry wrote: post #18
mabbo wrote: post #9

While I certainly don't support the 'rogue engineer' excuse that VW originally gave everyone, the idea does bring up an interesting point. An engineer did write this code. Almost certainly, many of them, working together. Now, their managers told them it was okay to do this, maybe that legal had given the go-ahead or that they had to do it to keep their jobs... But it's still pretty clear that this was not right. The…

The problem with this is that it localizes the consequences of defiance on the weakest part of the chain, all but guaranteeing failure. You can't even expect engineers to blow the whistle on their soon-to-be-former employer. Ethics is about protecting the weak from the strong, not offering up the weak to get eaten by the strong. Only heroes put the good of the many over their own needs, and you can't expect everyone…

> Only heroes put the good of the many over their own needs, and you can't expect everyone to be a hero.

> ...

> it will never happen while the idea of a guild / union for software engineers is still anathema.

Sounds like you're waiting for a union and that's the only solution.

In the interim, we can and should encourage people to be heroes. Let's face it, there are other programming jobs out there. Do you truly need to work for an unethical boss or company?

Everyone may not come up with the same answer depending on their individual situation. We should at least support potential whistleblowers as a community. That's one first step towards becoming a unified group.

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#74

Post by mikeash »

pbasista wrote: post #53
mikeash wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is how modern companies break the rules. Management doesn't break the rules, either overtly or covertly. Management scrupulously follows the rules, while placing requirements on their workers that can only be met by breaking the rules. Want your workers to work more, but you don't want to pay overtime, or you run into trouble with regulations about consecutive hours on the job? Just bump up how much work they ha…

You have made some very strong points - thanks for summarizing it together. I would like to ask: What do you think should an ordinary employee do when they see a behavior like you describe from their management? How to efficiently protect themselves (and their colleagues) from this kind of treatment?

I've just observed this, not experienced it, so I'm not sure. It's far easier to see the problem than figure out a solution!

Much will depend on your job prospects and financial position. If you're a fancy programmer type who's constantly bugged by recruiters, move on until you find an ethical company. If you need this job to eat, you'll have to be a lot more careful.

In general, I'd say:

1. Point out the impossibility of the requirements to management. Gently if need be. It's possible they don't realize what they're doing.

2. Contact the local department of labor or whatever regulatory agency would be interested in what's going on. They may be able to take action if management is pushing violations in a quiet way like this. If not, they may be able to at least take action against the workplace if people have started breaking the rules.

3. If you can afford to risk the consequences, follow the rules as much as you can. Don't work off the clock, don't break safety rules, etc. If being fired will make you homeless then maybe this isn't an option.

4. Document everything. If regulators weren't interested originally, they may be interested once you can show a pattern. Upper management may be blissfully ignorant, and you may be able to get them involved once you can show them what's going on. Whatever happens, if things come to a head then it will probably be useful to be able to demonstrate that this wasn't your own doing.

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#75

Post by phire »

edejong wrote: post #65

An interesting twist to this would be to change liability. Make the driver liable (not the manufacturer) for driving a car breaking the emission standards. This will set in motion the following steps: - Car users will be offered insurance against breaking emission standards - Insurance companies will hire specialists to lower insurance rates of above insurance - Consumers are disincentivized to modify their ECU in a…

I feel like this would have the opposite effect.

No one will offer insurance against this liability at a reasonable cost.

Instead, car manufactures will offer a guarantee that the car will not break emission standards when they sell the car to the consumer.

This guarantee will be void the second you do anything the manufacture doesn't approve of, such as missing a scheduled servicing appointment, which of course must take place at the manufacture certified servicing center.

Car manufactures will take the opportunity to lock down the firmware even further and block 3rd party servicing centers.

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#76

Post by indolering »

mikeash wrote: post #36
ma2rten wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I was an evil VP, I would give my eningeers the incentive to do something without giving them a direct order. So, you might tell them: If you can improve gas millage by X% you get a huge bonus and I don't care how you do it.

This is how modern companies break the rules. Management doesn't break the rules, either overtly or covertly. Management scrupulously follows the rules, while placing requirements on their workers that can only be met by breaking the rules. Want your workers to work more, but you don't want to pay overtime, or you run into trouble with regulations about consecutive hours on the job? Just bump up how much work they ha…

This is also how we end up with "crazy" regulations. Case-in-point: nuclear waste handling. Engineers create complex six-sigma safety plans which are then slowly eroded as the regulations and safety protocols are wacky overkill, right?

The WIPP nuclear isolation site had a 15 year run so management began to cut corners. Then three unlikely events all lined up and nearly got people killed. It started with a truck catching fire, which prompted operators to bypass the HVAC's filtration system. They stopped the bypass for a few days to perform maintenance on the only underground radiation detection unit. That unit gave a false alarm during testing, but was fixed and placed back into service so they started ventilating again. Then a cask was breached ~midnight because someone upstream had used organic kitty litter instead of clay kitty litter. The operator assumed it was a false alarm due to the previous false positive and kept things running. It wasn't until the next morning that they realized they were blowing radioactive particles above ground.

Had management kept maintenance up, enforced protocol, or done more than the absolute bare minimum (i.e. installing multiple underground radiation detection units) US tax payers could have avoided paying $500 million dollars. And this isn't a one-off thing, there are dozens of instances just like this where the US dodged a bullet.

0: https://lessonslearned.lbl.gov/Docs/2091/OES_2015-02%20-%20R...

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#77

Post by nisa »

nisa wrote: post #30
parennoob wrote: post #10

> In 2015, regulators realized that diesel Volkswagens and Audis were emitting several times the legal limit of nitrogen oxides (NOx) during real-world driving tests. This means that they can detect emissions levels during real world driving tests. What's wrong with just making those tests the actual regulatory ones? So whatever ingenuity automakers can use will be put to minimizing emissions in the exact same scenar…

> What's wrong with just making those tests the actual regulatory ones? Nothing. But Germany has a strong position in the EU and to a large degree does what VW/BMW/Mercedes want and they wanted to avoid stronger or better tests. This topic is quite often in the news here and it's clear that there is no political will to establish real word tests. There are also a lot of other cheats in this firmware: - Below 14°C? Ju…

Extensive PDF from the Umwaltbundesamt (comparable to the EPA - it's an independent agency) - http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/254...

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#78

Post by gerdesj »

mabbo wrote: post #9

While I certainly don't support the 'rogue engineer' excuse that VW originally gave everyone, the idea does bring up an interesting point. An engineer did write this code. Almost certainly, many of them, working together. Now, their managers told them it was okay to do this, maybe that legal had given the go-ahead or that they had to do it to keep their jobs... But it's still pretty clear that this was not right. The…

It appears that the firmware was written by Bosch and not VW themselves. I can't believe that only VW engineers were involved in writing the spec that was sent to Bosch and that only one of those engineers understood that "acoustic" really meant "emissions".

I would imagine that Robert Bosch GMBH and co. are quietly developing a war chest of cash right now. They appear to have been caught writing deliberately naughty code to order.

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#79

Post by [deleted] »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #63
nickodell wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that this argues for the opposite - making firmware closed source and as hard to reverse engineer as possible. Let's say that the software is open source, and you can buy your own microcontroller and turn it into an ECU. There will be people who make their own modifications to it to improve performance. Some of those modifications make the car fail an emissions test, so they make it so that the car acts l…

What you describe already happens in the extremely-closed-source world of today. For most cars you can buy an ECU remap that can be switched from tuned to standard by the flick of a switch. An ECU is not actually that complicated. It reads a few tens of inputs (temperatures, air mass flow, lambda sensors, crank position, etc.), and controls a few tens of actuators (throttle body, fuel injectors, spark plugs, maybe va…

[deleted]

Re: A year of digging through code yields “smoking gun” on VW, Fiat diesel cheats

#80

Post by [deleted] »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #63
nickodell wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that this argues for the opposite - making firmware closed source and as hard to reverse engineer as possible. Let's say that the software is open source, and you can buy your own microcontroller and turn it into an ECU. There will be people who make their own modifications to it to improve performance. Some of those modifications make the car fail an emissions test, so they make it so that the car acts l…

What you describe already happens in the extremely-closed-source world of today. For most cars you can buy an ECU remap that can be switched from tuned to standard by the flick of a switch. An ECU is not actually that complicated. It reads a few tens of inputs (temperatures, air mass flow, lambda sensors, crank position, etc.), and controls a few tens of actuators (throttle body, fuel injectors, spark plugs, maybe va…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN