SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the Copies-Everything-Including-Cheating dept.
The US Justice Department (DOJ) on Thursday announced a $305 million civil settlement between Fiat Chrysler and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a lawsuit over illegal software found on certain diesel Dodge Ram models and diesel Jeep Grand Cherokee models.
[...] The settlement comes two years after the EPA accused Fiat Chrysler of installing undisclosed and illegal software on 104,000 vehicles, including 3.0L diesel Dodge Ram 1500 trucks and diesel Jeep Grand Cherokees between model years 2014 and 2016. The EPA claimed the software would sense when the vehicle was being tested under laboratory conditions and implement the full emissions control system so that the car could pass the EPA's emissions tests.
I guess the Volkswagen cheating was considered a feature by the Chrysler engineers, and they were just copying what the customers demanded?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @08:26AM (22 children)
People need to go to jail for this shit no matter what side of the aisle you're on. Leftists see indiscriminate polluter and the Right sees companies flouting government regulations to gain unfair advantages in the free market. Governments should pull up to the corporate suites with paddywagons and shareholders of other auto companies should class action sue these cheating bastards in the ground for illegal market manipulation. A good lawyer could make the latter argument that VW and Fiat share price was unfairly advantaged by these shenanigans. If they can't then laws should be changed so they can. Jail the lying bastards and repatriate what's left to the rightful owners.
Yeah I'm being extreme but there need to be severe consequences as any increase in particulate count leads to loss of human life and this much additional intentional air pollution released in excess of what we've all agreed on as acceptable is basically tantamount to negligent homicide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @08:45AM (9 children)
But are you ready to pay $100,000 for a mid-range car that is 100% compliant to a random bureaucrat's demands? Fight for clean air is good and all, but the country needs to move around at reasonable cost, or else there will be nobody left to appreciate the air. Currently entities like CARB are not constrained, they are free to write any requirements they want, with no regard to what cost they burden the society with.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @09:00AM (8 children)
Of course not and most other people wouldn't either. Fortunately that isn't a problem and in most countries never will be. In the situation at hand, there were millions of compliant cars on the roads from other manufactures with normal price tags and those other manufacturers still managed to sell cars and make money. This wasn't a question of complying and making cars unaffordable, this was a willful criminal act intended to artificially increase market share at the expense of the honest patsies.
Let them try. Create crazy unaffordable cars by mandate in the state of California. Please. Then behold the site of liberals/leftists/conservatives/alt-right/libertarians/breatharians and everything embrace in kinship and brotherhood as they literally to the voting booth to vote the incumbents out. Matter of fact I welcome it. We could use a catalyst to actually drain the swamp. The voter backlash would be so intense and unified it could herald new political parties. Textbooks a hundred years hence would devote entire chapters to the great Bear state purge of 2020.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @09:43AM (7 children)
The catalyst will be when trump declares marshmellow law and some states try, but fail, to secede.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @10:31AM (5 children)
FTFY
(Score: 5, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @10:36AM (3 children)
(Score: 3, Funny) by nobu_the_bard on Friday January 11 2019, @01:47PM (1 child)
Does this help?Just curious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @06:41PM
apparently not
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @07:44PM
can we turn it off?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 14 2019, @10:24AM
Did that make everything work better?
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 11 2019, @12:08PM
Are you implying that Big Hands Donald has Erectile Dysfunction?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @09:41AM (4 children)
Where do you people get this stuff?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @10:08AM (3 children)
Where do you people get this stuff?
Sit down, we're gonna do a bit of thinking. Imagine 2 competitors like, oh I don't know, Toyota and VolksWagen, two very large automotive conglomerate with cars in every category selling millions of cars yearly all over the world. Okay, got that in your pea brain? Now imagine some asshole government paper pusher decides he likes his job and seeing as his constituents keep bring up this environmental crap, said bureaucrat decides to take a shot at building a platform plank in the form of sticking those rich douchebag automakers with a little regulation. If all goes well, maybe the air'll end up smelling a little better at the post election ball you're sure to be attending next term when your voters see how wonderful a job you're doing listening to their whining and sticking one to Big Auto.
So far so good? Okay, we're almost there. Going back to Toyota and VW, we're a fly on the wall in both executive suites.
Toyota CEO sweating and gesticulating wildly: FUck fuck government assholes cost us $600 more per car. Oh well, we'll just have to jack up the rebates, try to work on reducing the expense of the emission tech
VolksWagen CEO smoking a cigar lit with 100 Euro notes then rubbing hands together gleefully: No worry Hans, fix is in. Our cars now cost at least $600 less than the competition thanks to a little something Franz in engineering cooked up.
Do you get it now? Regulations cost money and it has to come from somewhere, i.e., from the price of the products you sell. As a result the cheat's production costs go down, margin goes up and as long as no one's the wiser the con just goes on and on. Imagine opening up a lemonade stand across the street from the other kid except your lemons are significantly cheaper. You either price your drinks the same and rake in all the additional profit or sell under your competitor's cost and drive him out of business.
Now imagine if this had just continued unabated and then new more onerous reg come into play. Just cheat those too. YOLO! Free market capitalism is a great thing and has contributed enormously to global wealth in recent history but it's constantly under attack by bad actors and it's government's job (under the current system) to nip that shit in the bud. Otherwise, the market breaks, literal illegal products win the day and the cost in lives, property, and social distortion are paid for by the general population, your customers, the very people who collectively make it all possible.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @02:41PM (2 children)
You have no idea what free market means:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market [wikipedia.org]
I really wonder sometimes what percent of people even understamd ehat capitalism entails; The US is not a capitalist country... not even close. The economic system im the US is a form of crony-socialism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @03:49PM (1 child)
Effort free contradiction and a wikipedia link. You posted less than nothing. I could just detail your spelling errors and be more germane to the discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @06:38PM
Like I asked, I just want to know where do came from? Where did you learn the meaning of "free market"? I'm not interested in debating with you...
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 11 2019, @12:05PM (1 child)
Only poor people ever go to prison.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by realDonaldTrump on Saturday January 12 2019, @06:36AM
You wish. And I wish. We'd like that to be true. But, it's not true. Cosby is doing time. O.J. did 9 years. Rae Carruth of the Panthers did a lot of time. El Chapo, very big drug guy, was very highly rated by Forbes -- now I have him locked up. NO PARDON for that one, his family was very rude to me on Twitter. His cousin or whatever. Martin Shkreli, another big drug guy, was on the Forbes 30 Under 30 -- now I have him locked up. Phil Spector, big record producer -- locked up. Suge Knight, producer from Death Row Records -- locked up. You'd think maybe he could have picked a different name for that one. And maybe it's not such a bad thing these guys are locked up. Or were locked up. Because some of them, they're horrible people.
And by the way, I signed, very proudly, a historic Criminal Justice Reform Bill. We call that one the First Step Act. It's the first step, but it's a big one. Very bi-partisan. It will keep our communities safer, and provide hope and a 2nd. chance, to those who earn it. In addition to everything else, billions of dollars will be saved. America is the greatest Country in the world and my job is to fight for ALL citizens, even those who have made mistakes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 11 2019, @01:52PM (2 children)
How about we review the regulations that were causing the problem in the first place?
Unless, of course, it doesn't do that. How about jailing parents who keep their kids inside all the time in an overly clean environment? That makes for worse cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, and may by itself explain most of the increase in respiratory illness cases attributed to air pollution (assuming it's not all observation bias in the first place).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @04:07PM (1 child)
Volkswagen and Chrysler don't get to pick and choose what laws they feel like ignoring. Not only ignore but actively use sophisticated means to break the law for monetary gain and dupe the regulatory body and the buyers of their cars in the process. Adjudicate those offences and we can also consider the very separate issue of whether it's a good law or should be scrapped.
Certainly possible but neither does this absolve the companies in question. The law was on the books, these companies decided it didn't apply to them cuz reasons. Not good enough.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday January 12 2019, @01:26PM
I'd care if the regulation were worth enforcing. Instead we see here the consequences of dumb laws and regulations - namely, that they don't get enforced properly by the regulators. Personally, I think there's more important things to do with regulation that worrying about what dumb regulations Volkswagen and Chrysler are "picking and choosing". As to "adjudication", we could always just completely ignore these abuses from businesses both large and small, to be fair.
I used to think that rigorous enforcement of stupid regulations would help eliminate them. I don't believe that anymore - there's way too much stuff that's been kicking around for half a century or more. At this point, selective enforcement of regulation is already the saner though perhaps undemocratic approach.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Friday January 11 2019, @03:23PM
Yes it is a disgrace.
> Chrysler Settles for Fuel Emissions Cheating
Chrysler should set its sights higher. Do not settle for this. Chrysler should set its sights higher, on something far more evil than this. Something more ambitiously evil.
When trying to solve a problem don't ask who suffers from the problem, ask who profits from the problem.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 11 2019, @08:07PM
People need to go to jail for this shit no matter what side of the aisle you're on. Leftists see indiscriminate polluter and the Right sees companies flouting government regulations to gain unfair advantages in the free market.
Except that if you look at any thread on this topic here we see the left complaining about indiscriminate polluters (and fraud). And the right defending those indiscriminate polluters (and fraudsters).
I don't know how many time's I've seen the "standards are impossible to meet" nonsense even though the cars were able to meet the standards with the flip of a switch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @08:28AM (2 children)
We can pass a law to require fuel economy of 1234 MPG, or to require that exhaust gas be entirely Helium-3, or to require that regenerative brakes be 100% efficient, or that PI is 3.2 exactly.
Lawmakers do this kind of stuff. They don't have to live with the problem of compliance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @08:49AM
This would be a more compelling argument if the dozens of other automakers didn't comply just fine despite operating at just as large a scale as Fiat/Chrysler (and VW). If you gotta, maliciously comply like General Motors did with their Impact electric vehicle back in the 90's when California mandated zero emissions. But no, showing the politicians the errors in practice wasn't enough, 2 out of dozens of automakers had to let the promise of obscene profits from an unfair advantage take over their thinking and cheat their way to the resulting oversized share of the market. Yacht payments were made on the backs of the dead bodies left in the wake of extra-regulatory pollution.
I don't have a problem with profit and capitalism but if rules are laid down and every member of society agrees to abide by them then the allure of money doesn't allow you to carve out your own little unilateral exception. And this isn't some harmless prank, people will die and these executives knew it. It was willful. But because while these deaths are a statistical certainty*, humans don't have the cognitive wiring to make the leap necessary to follow through connection the proper punishment to the crime. So it will keep happening. What do you do when you get away with murder? And said murder pays a king's ransom? You do the math.
*yes, I know but the probability nears 1
(Score: 1) by noelhenson on Friday January 11 2019, @09:40AM
To back that up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @09:46AM (5 children)
I haven't crunched the numbers, but VW had to pay what, like 5 billion, and Chrysler gets off with 300 million.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday January 11 2019, @10:49AM (3 children)
Snip from NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/business/fiat-chrysler-justice-emissions-settlement.html [nytimes.com]
"United States officials viewed the Fiat Chrysler matter as less serious in some respects than the Volkswagen case because it involved fewer vehicles and the trucks and S.U.V.s had been on the road for less time. The E.P.A. also stopped short of accusing the company of intentionally engineering the software to cheat on emissions tests.
Volkswagen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and other charges brought by the Justice Department. The company agreed to pay $22 billion in settlements and fines, including $4.3 billion to settle a case brought by federal prosecutors. It also was required to buy back 600,000 diesel vehicles from American consumers. Two Volkswagen executives pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the United States."
Also, this settlement does not shield them from criminal charges. VW pleaded guilty to criminal conspiracy. This is still an open matter for Fiat/Chrysler. They still deny their cheating software was not cheating.
"Fiat Chrysler, however, has said that its software did not amount to an illegal defeat device. “Our position on that hasn’t changed,” said Eric Mayne, a company spokesman."
Approximately 100,000 vehicles from Chrysler are affected.
VW on the other hand, sold 11 million.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Friday January 11 2019, @10:59AM (1 child)
A little clarification:
VW 11million worldwide. 600k in U.S.
Fiat/Chrysler apparently only sold 104k in the U.S. only, including 1700 imported vehicles.
And oddly, three quarters of this page is struck through. From an AC's quote down. On this article only.
Is this local to my browser, or is everyone seeing this?
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @11:47AM
I am seeing the strikethrough
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @04:08PM
The NYT? Do you mean the N. Y. T.? Their spacing for common acronyms is annoying.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @10:54AM
5 billion sounds about right but naturally such a paltry sum means little. It's less than half their yearly profits and a tiny fraction of their overall revenue of over 250 billion dollars. All it did was give them a nice slap on the wrist and the hardened resolve to not get caught next time. To make this shit stick, you gotta hit them on gross revenue. Make them have to fight for survival after a flagrant violation like this. Anything less is practically tacit approval and amounts to political posturing before the electorate. We can argue over the necessity of any law including this very one. Maybe it was a stupid law, maybe it was utterly unfair, I don't know the answer to that but the contents of the law is immaterial to the fact that it applies to all equally and neither VW or Fiat get special or cute enough to be the exception. In order for the system to work the laws have to apply to us all. All emissions laws that apply to Opel, Renault, Tata, etc. also apply to fucking Volkswagen and Fiat. If you decide they don't, despite your money, your power, your influence, or which politician's nephew shares a class at the local Monessori school with your own precious angel, you are not GoDDAMN special and token penalties for Real Fuckups are a slap in the face to everybody else following the rules. Guess what, the other guys aren't stupid. They see VW get away with something they're gonna start wondering how to get on the gravy train. Then your air is really and truly fucked. But who cares right? Muh fuckin' profffffitttsss
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 11 2019, @12:09PM (2 children)
Does this work?
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday January 11 2019, @12:09PM
Rum, Goatse and The LashYes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @04:10PM
Maybe this: -->test
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday January 11 2019, @03:13PM
One does wonder just how realistic the standards are. Yes, the manufacturers should not have cheated. However, are the standards reachable with a reasonable investment? Or are they impossible pipe dreams?
One should ask the same question about numerous safety features. Two examples:
- Every car must be safe in a rollover incident, which leads to massive roof pillars that impede visibility. We're used to this, but if you ever have the luck to drive a car from the 50s or 60s, you will see how huge the difference is. So: how many fatalities occur due to the obstructed vision? How common are rollovers? Would some compromise - better visibility, slightly less massive roof pillars - be a better compromise? But rollover safety sounds good, and it's hard to measure accidents caused by poor visibility, so the "good intentions" automatically win.
- Cars in the US, Canada and some other countries must have a third brake light. This was based on a trial with New York taxis, where some had a third brake light installed, and this reduced the number of rear-end collisions. I was driving back in the 1980s, when this study was done, and seeing that third light was really strange and attention getting. So the actual comparison in New York was between ordinary, unremarkable taxis, and taxis with a weird new feature. Of course the weird-looking taxis were hit fewer times - people noticed them. If they were to repeat the study today, now that third brake lights are normal, I expect there would be little or no difference. But no one reviews old regulations - the things just accumulate like barnacles.
Those are safety regulations, but fuel and emissions regulations are just as bad, or even worse. Who picks the numbers? How are they justified? What cheating is allowed, using "fleet averages" and the like? Anyone want to bet that the real basis is corporate cronyism: big manufacturers lobbying for regulations that will hamstring their competitors?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Friday January 11 2019, @04:54PM
The comment that broke everything missed the
tag.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 11 2019, @05:58PM
Through!
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Friday January 11 2019, @10:32PM