4 ms·

> Yes, but in this case compliance is quite difficult. Agreed. It's highly unlikely that the Compliance department could have detected what the engineers had d

> Yes, but in this case compliance is quite difficult. Agreed. It's highly unlikely that the Compliance department could have detected what the engineers had done, short of having someone audit the code, line by line, or inventing a test to check the emissions while the car was moving. Based on my experience in the financial sector, Compliance departments don't work like that - if someone really wants to cheat or circumvent the rules, there's a good chance they'll be able to conceal it from Compliance, at least for a while. People are responsible for their own actions, even when their job title is "engineer".

illumen 11y ago
VW modeled specifications and tested them for other components. Why wouldn't these components be written to specification?
jacquesm 11y ago
We're not talking 1.1 vs 1.2, we're talking a 40 fold increase. If the compliance department is not able to detect such a massive fraud then they should all be out of jobs. And if they don't audit the code then they should be out of jobs anyway. There is a big difference between process compliance (the kind that the financial world is burdened with) and product compliance. Independent laboratories would have been able - and in fact did - to find these discrepancies with comparable ease, further down there is a link to a magazine article where 9 cars were tested by an outside lab just to write an article.
- jackgavigan 11y ago
  The magnitude of the increase is irrelevant. The key question is whether it was reasonable to expect them to detect it, which is, in turn, informed by the question of how they could have done so. The obvious method to audit compliance against an emissions standard is to use the same test that the regulator does. Obviously, in this case, that wouldn't have detected the defeat device. To detect it, they would have needed to either conduct a non-standard test, or audit the code. Both those solutions seem, to me, to be above and beyond what would be considered reasonable due diligence under the circumstances. Perhaps I'm wrong, though - perhaps other car-makers perform such tests as a matter of course? I'm happy to be presented with evidence that that's the case. Even if it is the case, however, that still doesn't absolve the engineers from blame. The bottom line is this: You are suggesting that the engineers who created the defeat device should not be blamed for doing so because the Compliance department should have detected it. I'm saying that not only was it not necessarily reasonable to expect the Compliance department to detect it but, even that were the case, it doesn't absolve the engineers of responsibility for what they did.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I suspect the engineers were ordered to do this, not that they came up with this by themselves. (In fact, I find that suggestion totally unbelievable.) I agree the engineers are culpable but if they were acting under orders from their managers then the buck has to stop somewhere, someone is going to be the last one 'up the chain' that decided it was within their pay-grade to make this decision. The internal organization of VW is such that that decision could have only come straight from the top given the liability in case of exposure. If the only way to ensure compliance is to audit the code then that's what you should do. It basically says the testing regime is so easy to detect that it can be used to defeat the test itself, Bosch correspondence indicates that this software is expressly not meant to be included in the final product and VW knowingly ignored that information, something a compliance department should have been absolutely on top of.
    - jackgavigan 11y ago
      At some point, somebody came up with the idea and a decision was made, either individually or through consensus, to use the defeat device. Why do you find it so unbelievable that it was an engineer (or a group that included engineers)? Would it make a difference if it was an engineer who had been promoted to be a team leader? Promoted to "chief engineer"? "Engineering manager"? At what point would the person's title be far enough removed from "engineer" that you would find it believable? Does having the word "manager" in one's job description automatically make one less trustworthy than someone who has the word "engineer" in theirs? Shall we just adopt a policy of "Engineer good. Manager evil."? You say that the compliance department should have audited the code. Do other car companies' compliance departments audit their code? I doubt they do. I suspect it would be cost-prohibitive.
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        > At some point, somebody came up with the idea and a decision was made, either individually or through consensus, to use the defeat device. What should have happened: Hey boss, there is no way that this engine is going to pass emissions. What should we do now? Manager: sorry, but if there is no way, there is no way, I'll communicate that up the chain. What possibly happened: Hey boss, there is no way that this engine is going to pass emissions. What should we do now? Manager: let me confer with upstairs. Some time passes. Manager: there is no such thing as no way let's find a way, cheat if you have to (but don't tell me you did). Or something even more damning. Now, the big question is what happened during 'some time passes'. Whether the buy-in went all the way to the top or whether that person made this up all by themselves. VW wants us to believe the second. Knowing a bit about German corporate culture I sincerely doubt that. If there is one thing that Germans excel in it must be strict adherence to process and authority. > Why do you find it so unbelievable that it was an engineer (or a group that included engineers)? Would it make a difference if it was an engineer who had been promoted to be a team leader? Promoted to "chief engineer"? "Engineering manager"? At what point would the person's title be far enough removed from "engineer" that you would find it believable? Does having the word "manager" in one's job description automatically make one less trustworthy than someone who has the word "engineer" in theirs? Shall we just adopt a policy of "Engineer good. Manager evil."? Engineer is a title that comes with a whole bunch of responsibility. Manager and Engineer are not mutually exclusive titles. But clearly there is a line drawn on the VW org chart that supposedly insulates those higher up from any fall-out from this other than some 'formal responsibility' while using the old and tired 'but I didn't know about it' line. I don't buy that for a second, you just can't have a thing like this going on in a car company that has the ambition to be the worlds largest supplier of vehicles and not be in control of the product that is being produced. That spells 'corporate cultural rot' to me at a level that would be far more damning than outright malice. Of course outright malice might end with direct culpability for management which is why we get this other spiel. > You say that the compliance department should have audited the code. Yes. > Do other car companies' compliance departments audit their code? I would bloody well hope so. If they don't they ought to get other jobs. Reviews are there for a purpose, it is not that this stuff is so different from one version to another that you could not spot the commit that is tagged 'added test cycle detection and defeat code' (or even if it is mis-labeled on purpose to spot that someone inserted a bunch of code with a description that does not match). I worked for a bank for a bit and there was absolutely no way that I'd be able to get away with a trick like this without being caught. > I doubt they do. That could be right. > I suspect it would be cost-prohibitive. This would hold true for Morgan (who buys their engines from BMW and they're not diesels) but it certainly would not be true for VW, the cost of a thorough audit would be an extremely small fraction of the cost of the fines they are now incurring and on the budget of VW it would be next to nothing.

illumen 11y ago

VW modeled specifications and tested them for other components. Why wouldn't these components be written to specification?

jacquesm 11y ago

We're not talking 1.1 vs 1.2, we're talking a 40 fold increase. If the compliance department is not able to detect such a massive fraud then they should all be out of jobs. And if they don't audit the code then they should be out of jobs anyway. There is a big difference between process compliance (the kind that the financial world is burdened with) and product compliance. Independent laboratories would have been able - and in fact did - to find these discrepancies with comparable ease, further down there is a link to a magazine article where 9 cars were tested by an outside lab just to write an article.

jackgavigan 11y ago
The magnitude of the increase is irrelevant. The key question is whether it was reasonable to expect them to detect it, which is, in turn, informed by the question of how they could have done so. The obvious method to audit compliance against an emissions standard is to use the same test that the regulator does. Obviously, in this case, that wouldn't have detected the defeat device. To detect it, they would have needed to either conduct a non-standard test, or audit the code. Both those solutions seem, to me, to be above and beyond what would be considered reasonable due diligence under the circumstances. Perhaps I'm wrong, though - perhaps other car-makers perform such tests as a matter of course? I'm happy to be presented with evidence that that's the case. Even if it is the case, however, that still doesn't absolve the engineers from blame. The bottom line is this: You are suggesting that the engineers who created the defeat device should not be blamed for doing so because the Compliance department should have detected it. I'm saying that not only was it not necessarily reasonable to expect the Compliance department to detect it but, even that were the case, it doesn't absolve the engineers of responsibility for what they did.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I suspect the engineers were ordered to do this, not that they came up with this by themselves. (In fact, I find that suggestion totally unbelievable.) I agree the engineers are culpable but if they were acting under orders from their managers then the buck has to stop somewhere, someone is going to be the last one 'up the chain' that decided it was within their pay-grade to make this decision. The internal organization of VW is such that that decision could have only come straight from the top given the liability in case of exposure. If the only way to ensure compliance is to audit the code then that's what you should do. It basically says the testing regime is so easy to detect that it can be used to defeat the test itself, Bosch correspondence indicates that this software is expressly not meant to be included in the final product and VW knowingly ignored that information, something a compliance department should have been absolutely on top of.
  - jackgavigan 11y ago
    At some point, somebody came up with the idea and a decision was made, either individually or through consensus, to use the defeat device. Why do you find it so unbelievable that it was an engineer (or a group that included engineers)? Would it make a difference if it was an engineer who had been promoted to be a team leader? Promoted to "chief engineer"? "Engineering manager"? At what point would the person's title be far enough removed from "engineer" that you would find it believable? Does having the word "manager" in one's job description automatically make one less trustworthy than someone who has the word "engineer" in theirs? Shall we just adopt a policy of "Engineer good. Manager evil."? You say that the compliance department should have audited the code. Do other car companies' compliance departments audit their code? I doubt they do. I suspect it would be cost-prohibitive.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      > At some point, somebody came up with the idea and a decision was made, either individually or through consensus, to use the defeat device. What should have happened: Hey boss, there is no way that this engine is going to pass emissions. What should we do now? Manager: sorry, but if there is no way, there is no way, I'll communicate that up the chain. What possibly happened: Hey boss, there is no way that this engine is going to pass emissions. What should we do now? Manager: let me confer with upstairs. Some time passes. Manager: there is no such thing as no way let's find a way, cheat if you have to (but don't tell me you did). Or something even more damning. Now, the big question is what happened during 'some time passes'. Whether the buy-in went all the way to the top or whether that person made this up all by themselves. VW wants us to believe the second. Knowing a bit about German corporate culture I sincerely doubt that. If there is one thing that Germans excel in it must be strict adherence to process and authority. > Why do you find it so unbelievable that it was an engineer (or a group that included engineers)? Would it make a difference if it was an engineer who had been promoted to be a team leader? Promoted to "chief engineer"? "Engineering manager"? At what point would the person's title be far enough removed from "engineer" that you would find it believable? Does having the word "manager" in one's job description automatically make one less trustworthy than someone who has the word "engineer" in theirs? Shall we just adopt a policy of "Engineer good. Manager evil."? Engineer is a title that comes with a whole bunch of responsibility. Manager and Engineer are not mutually exclusive titles. But clearly there is a line drawn on the VW org chart that supposedly insulates those higher up from any fall-out from this other than some 'formal responsibility' while using the old and tired 'but I didn't know about it' line. I don't buy that for a second, you just can't have a thing like this going on in a car company that has the ambition to be the worlds largest supplier of vehicles and not be in control of the product that is being produced. That spells 'corporate cultural rot' to me at a level that would be far more damning than outright malice. Of course outright malice might end with direct culpability for management which is why we get this other spiel. > You say that the compliance department should have audited the code. Yes. > Do other car companies' compliance departments audit their code? I would bloody well hope so. If they don't they ought to get other jobs. Reviews are there for a purpose, it is not that this stuff is so different from one version to another that you could not spot the commit that is tagged 'added test cycle detection and defeat code' (or even if it is mis-labeled on purpose to spot that someone inserted a bunch of code with a description that does not match). I worked for a bank for a bit and there was absolutely no way that I'd be able to get away with a trick like this without being caught. > I doubt they do. That could be right. > I suspect it would be cost-prohibitive. This would hold true for Morgan (who buys their engines from BMW and they're not diesels) but it certainly would not be true for VW, the cost of a thorough audit would be an extremely small fraction of the cost of the fines they are now incurring and on the budget of VW it would be next to nothing.