VW • Hacker News Board

Re: VW

#41

Post by jtheory » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 7:23 PM UTC

sauere wrote: post #2

> It doesn't matter that their bosses told them to do it. They did it. It's not that easy. Sure, what they done can be considered "evil"... but what if they had refused to do it? They would have most likely lost their jobs and they would have no chance in a court trial. Volkswagen has a army of lawyers and is in tightly connected with every relevant government agency in Germany.

This is all very theoretical, since we don't know the situation.

But the other possibility would be to "blow the whistle" anonymously.

The chances of getting away with that still aren't great (if VW put some effort into flushing out the snitch, I think only a practised liar could get through it...), but it's another way forward.

And actually: it's possible this actually happened, and the official story of how this was discovered is just a cover for an anonymous engineer who managed to get a warning to the right person.

Re: VW

#42

Post by weinzierl » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 7:25 PM UTC

tzs wrote: post #39

weinzierl wrote: post #4

I suppose you could make the argument that these programmers did not know what they were doing. That they were simply given some specs, and they implemented those specs, and didn't know that they were accomplices in a case of massive fraud. I think that argument is even more asinine than Michael Horn's. They knew. And if they didn't know, they should have known. They had a responsibility to know. I agree with all the…

From what I've read, the trigger for the mode switch was very detailed and narrowly tailored to the EPA certification testing, and included barometric pressure as a factor. That makes it quite a bit harder to believe that whoever implemented it thought it was for some legitimate testing. For testing you want a trigger that is hard for anyone to hit accidentally, but easy for people who know about it to hit. You would…

I don't doubt that the developers where told to specifically write code to detect the EPA certification testing environment. I just think it is a possible scenario that they were left in dark about the real reason for the detection to exist in the first place.

Hypothetical example: The Lane Keeping Assistant can actively adjust steering. Turing the wheels during a test on the dynamometer can make the car jump off the rolls and harm people. The dynamometer is a highly artificial environment that can potentially confuse the Lane Keeping Assistant.

Do you ensure safety through testing guidelines or through safety measures in code? Would this be a plausible reason for a developer to write the dynamometer testing environment detection code?

Re: VW

#43

Post by greenyoda » Sun, Oct 18, 2015, 7:46 PM UTC

scintill76 wrote: post #16

dmd wrote: post #5

It is absolutely plausible that the programmers had no idea. From the excellent Metafilter thread: > i mean, how do the product managers rationalize this feature to their colleagues? what to they write in the spec that isn't all-out incriminating? Modularity Department 1: Req 1: Software should enable emissions controls upon receipt of control signal A. Req 2: Software should disable emissions controls upon receipt o…

Still seems kind of fishy, at least without some stated reason why it needs to know it's being tested.

See this comment from weinzierl, which has an example of a system that needs to behave differently while in a test environment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10409417

Re: VW

#44

Post by Silhouette » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 1:38 AM UTC

gaius wrote: post #37

woah wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Luckily we settled on C and we've all seen how bug-free that turned out to be /s

If C was the only language, then a vast body of experience would exist in it and no-one would be writing new code with off-by-one errors in it. What we have right now is everyone "knows" many languages, but actually has little experience with each one. And given the chance to use a new language, we jump at it, even tho' we all know better.

Given the vast body of experience we do have with using C and given that we are in fact still writing new code with off-by-one errors in it, I'm not sure this argument holds much water. There are plenty of developers who have decades of professional experience programming in C, and some of those people are really smart and make software that millions of people depend on, and they still make those mistakes. A bad workman might always blame his tools, but even a good workman will do a better job with better tools.

Re: VW

#45

Post by pluma » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 10:10 AM UTC

Maarten88 wrote: post #34

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #17

I find his assertion that the programmers "should have known" to be beyond naive. There's a reason that teams designing these sorts of systems consult with lawyers who are experts on the relevant law. The programmer's job is to program. Expecting them to also deal with details of legality and morality (beyond grossly obvious things like hard coding dosage limits into medical equipment) is just wishful thinking. That'…

> The programmer's job is to program... I think an engineer has more responsibility than following orders. Especially a German engineer should be aware of this. "Ich habe es nicht gewüst" is only an excuse as long as it is true.

"Ich habe es nicht gewusst".

Also, I fully agree. There is well-known historic precedent for "I just followed orders" not to be a valid excuse. Plus, the consequences would likely not have been even remotely close to that for a soldier in WW2 (i.e. unlikely to be shot for treason).

OTOH using the programmers as scapegoats is wrong. Yes, those who carry out the orders are guilty. But the entire chain of command that led to it is even more guilty. And thanks to corruption, they'll likely only feel a fraction of the punishment the scapegoats will face.

Re: VW

#46

Post by pluma » Mon, Oct 19, 2015, 10:29 AM UTC

jtheory wrote: post #41

sauere wrote: post #2

> It doesn't matter that their bosses told them to do it. They did it. It's not that easy. Sure, what they done can be considered "evil"... but what if they had refused to do it? They would have most likely lost their jobs and they would have no chance in a court trial. Volkswagen has a army of lawyers and is in tightly connected with every relevant government agency in Germany.

This is all very theoretical, since we don't know the situation. But the other possibility would be to "blow the whistle" anonymously. The chances of getting away with that still aren't great (if VW put some effort into flushing out the snitch, I think only a practised liar could get through it...), but it's another way forward. And actually: it's possible this actually happened , and the official story of how this w…

There is some evidence indicating that there's corruption at play, not just within Volkswagen but also in the lobbies and government. Blowing the whistle would likely put them in a similar situation to Snowden (i.e. unable to take the legally blessed route, having to go directly to the media, denying them any protections otherwise granted to whistle blowers), legality-wise.