VW firmware engineers morally bankrupt?? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 10:15:58 am
content: Now I've owned quite a few VW/AUDI cars - I like them, however this leaves a very sour taste:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34298259http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/19/business/volkswagen-is-ordered-to-recall-nearly-500000-vehicles-over-emissions-software.html?_r=0http://arstechnica.com/cars/2015/09/volkswagen-group-must-recall-500000-diesel-cars-for-cheating-on-smog-tests/I wonder how high up the development food chain this goes? Ultimately some firmware (or team of) engineer must have questioned the morality of not only writing, but installing this code in the ECU?It'll be interesting to see how VW Group is going to handle this? What will happen if the EU gets stuck into this - a large majority of VW/AUDI's in the EU are Diesel..EDIT: Here's the EPA notice to VW:http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/documents/vw-nov-caa-09-18-15.pdf

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 10:22:00 am
content: Wow that is bad, I hope they send them to jail for fraud.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 10:30:03 am
content: Page 4 of the EPA letter to VW is quite a shocking accusation. Love the plain English.And that 2.0L diesel is EVERYWHERE in the EU - I wonder if it has the same 'Road Calibration' firmware? They are somewhat f##k'd if it does (the EU are bound to steer their gaze in VW's direction), and if it doesn't then the wind is sucked out of their main defense in the US.

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 11:09:26 am
content: Dyno detection is an open secret in the industry for quite some years. You'd bet that all the big companies that need to fulfill strict regulations try to "optimize" this way or the other.Where dyno detection is probably not the worst thing to do.Anyway, the focus on VW is most probably unfair and more or less a matter of protecting the US car industry. GM took some major hits lately.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 11:46:40 am
content: Quote from: fcb on September 19, 2015, 10:15:58 amSorry but there is nothing new here.ALLcar manufacturers have software in their ECU which detects government issued test cycles and adjust engine parameters accordingly to pass the test and/or getting lower fuel consumption numbers.Modern diesels are not very reliable in general due to the emission control systems and high pressure fuel systems. Therefore a lot of people have the particle filter and exhaust recirculation valve disabled to prevent damage to the engine. Even with these modifications they still pass annual emission testing.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 11:50:35 am
content: So basically it detects that you are running it as a stationary generator and adjusts to a low emission mode instead of a performance mode.

author: DimitriP
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 12:13:53 pm
content: They will most likely claim the "software" optimizes the engine performance according to conditions and the test happens to be one of those conditions where the engine performance is optimized in such a way that may or may not reflect actual real life performance.that was a mouthful.Maybe the EPA will create a new ECU software review department juuuust to make sure there is no funny business going on in the code.Now that will be something !!!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 12:29:01 pm
content: Quote from: DimitriP on September 19, 2015, 12:13:53 pmIn the PDF it says VW has admitted to put an algorithm in the software which detects a test cycle and switches the ECU into a low emissions mode. IOW: VW has admitted cheating.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 12:56:16 pm
content: The whole point of these tests is to identify vehicles that put out TOXIC NOx and CARCINOGENIC diesel particulates and rate them accordingly. That shit is breathed in by you, me and our children.This maybe an open secret in the industry, but obviously not to the wider world.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 12:57:26 pm
content: Quote from: 0xdeadbeef on September 19, 2015, 11:09:26 amSo you think it's just a protectionist measure huh?Bollocks.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:02:16 pm
content: The visible soot from a diesel is far less harmless than the really small particles. And guess what the emission control systems do on a diesel: create way more of the small and harmfull particles

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:13:33 pm
content: So, the question is, if you were the firmware guy (or anyone in the chain, testing etc), would you have complied and done this, or refused?Secretly reported them?

author: Mechanical Menace
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:17:32 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 19, 2015, 01:13:33 pmWould depend on my contract. Whistle blowing is a bad thing nowadays, and if whistle blowing about governments gets you treated like Manning or Snowden just imagine what whistle blowing on the worlds governments corporate masters gets you.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:21:00 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 19, 2015, 01:13:33 pmI bet there was some disquiet amongst the firmware team. Sadly, unless this all comes to court, we are unlikely to ever know.Unlike the Toyota unintended acceleration issue, this is a deliberate act of wool-pulling and the penalties could be VERY large.

author: dr.diesel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:21:30 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 19, 2015, 01:13:33 pmNothing worse than a deliberate cheater.Down they go IMO, this has a negative effect on society, turn them in. The world needs more good people that won't stand for this kind of BS.

author: 0xdeadbeef
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:23:02 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on September 19, 2015, 01:13:33 pmSome people here seem to have a wrong impression of the complexity of automotive SW and the processes involved.It's not like a few people hack some firmware with some functions. This kind of software got actually quite big and complex meanwhile with requirement specs, autocoding, several abstraction layers.Anyway, it's not the job of a SW developer to decide whether a function gets in or not.And even of everybody seems to ignore this: it's not like only VW does this. I'd bet everybody in the industry does things like this - and worse.

author: zapta
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:26:08 pm
content: WV puts the interests of its customers first. I like it.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:28:58 pm
content: Very likely something along the lines of:"Uh boss, I'm not sure we should do the thing.""Do the thing because I said so.""Yabbut, this part right here pretty explicitly says that the thing is illegal.""Do it anyway!""*Loud sigh* alright fine, I hereby release any responsibility to the actions resulting from this. As my contract probably says. You're on your own, boss-dude.""That's fine. I've got a few spare mil knocking about. They can't jail me for any number of reasons, and a fine is but a slap on the wrist."And it's all true, too; if anyone is even charged (which I guess seems likely, but I don't know how these sorts of violations generally play out), it'll just be a modest fine, amounting to a small percentage of total sales related to the thing in question.For the most part, law is set up so that willful violations can be, and are, considered in the realm of normal operating procedure. It's not a matter of "we shouldn't do this at all", or even "we should just not get caught", but "we'll do the thing, and it'll cost us about X in fines and legal fees, but we'll earn Y (> X) in the process".As for the morality of deferred responsibility, that's always up for grabs, but it's generally accepted in practice that your superior always holds the final say, and responsibility, in such matters. Whether that actually leaves any impact upon them is a matter for the courts, and those who create the laws which the courts must follow.Tim

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:32:59 pm
content: I don't consider that "cheating". Government requests certain pollution figures under certain, well defined conditions (standarized dyno test runs). Engineers optimize their software to meet these demands. They got what they asked for, so what?

author: orion242
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:38:12 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on September 19, 2015, 01:28:58 pmExactly my thoughts. Not the first time the auto industry has done this math. Wasn't the gm ignition switches the same equation? Cheaper to settle a few deaths than recall everything.

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:44:02 pm
content: Quote from: continuo on September 19, 2015, 01:32:59 pmPage 6, Article 5, phrase 2c:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32007R0715&from=EN

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:45:22 pm
content: Quote from: continuo on September 19, 2015, 01:32:59 pmYou can very easily do that for electromagnetic compatibility as well. The overall intents and responsibilities are very similar: avoiding pollution of common resources and preventing interference with other users of those resources. Of course the scale, speed and mechanism are very different (chemical, delayed and dependent on weather, versus electromagnetic, instantaneous and generally local), but the general idea is the same.When testing in the lab, you must define a specific configuration (of the device, cables, etc.), preferably a typical use-case including attached cables, programming and operation, etc. There's tons of room for cheating here: omitting cables on noisy outputs; "stealth mode" programming; orienting cables in a particular pattern to reduce radiation; etc. You don't need to represent it very fairly, at least until those cases generate enough complaints that you get into hot water (see above for a similar example!). It's for your own good (you're liable!) and the good of your users, and those nearby who may be using important services on the airwaves, that your test be as representative as reasonably possible.One would therefore expect, in the normal course of operation (high and low throttle, acceleration, idling, cruising, high and low atmospheric temperature, humidity, pressure (altitude) and so on), that it may occasionally blow outside the regulated limits. But so long as the test case is representative of the average condition, it should be fine.And it seems the finding here is that it was not so adequately represented, which is a problem.Tim

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:45:36 pm
content: Quote from: orion242 on September 19, 2015, 01:38:12 pmRalph Nader highlighted this in the 70's with "Unsafe at any speed".

author: fcb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:49:24 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on September 19, 2015, 01:45:22 pmI agree that there are parallels with EMC to some extent.

author: Macbeth
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 19, 2015, 01:50:40 pm
content: Quote from: continuo on September 19, 2015, 01:32:59 pmI agree. I'm a bit more au fait with petrol than diesel, but it the emissions are only tested at certain loads and RPM (and NOx isn't even tested for on the UK MOT). Engines are free to run outside of normal closed loop control during e.g. wide open throttle.I imagine the same scenario is employed with diesels. The social engineers don't like it. Funny how they let public transport blow all the shit they want out of their exhausts.It's not that they deliberatey "detect an emissions test" and hoodwink it (just how the fuck is that meant to happen?). They must run emissions control in regular 90%+ of driving modes and only switch it off when engine is under heavy load (like WOT). Nothing wrong with that.