<story><title>German regulator says it discovered new illegal software on Daimler diesels</title><url>https://www.wsj.com/articles/daimler-slashes-outlook-on-fresh-diesel-allegations-11561367960?mod=rsswn</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>londons_explore</author><text>Yes, but that won&amp;#x27;t solve the issue.&lt;p&gt;The issue is regulators write regulations for one thing, but want a subtly different thing.&lt;p&gt;If you and I start a game of poker, but rather than winning through skill, I call the FBI and get them to search all your cards, have I broken the rules of poker?  It wasn&amp;#x27;t a written rule not to call the FBI...&lt;p&gt;Regulators across the world have similar gaps in the rules, and both humans and automated design tools will start to exploit them, possibly unknowingly.   Instead they need to make far more watertight rules.   They should simply require all cars to measure their own emissions, and bill the companies for any cars which either mis-measure emissions, or measure more emissions in their lifetime than an allowed limit.  Then manufacturers will have an incentive to upgrade cars in the field.</text></item><item><author>deogeo</author><text>Isn&amp;#x27;t it about time all software&amp;#x2F;hardware in cars should be required to be open-source? There should be no room for secret functionality on something as pervasive and dangerous as cars and trucks. Especially if it&amp;#x27;s also kept secret from their supposed owners.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>mikeash</author><text>“It wasn&amp;#x27;t a written rule not to call the FBI...”&lt;p&gt;But it &lt;i&gt;was&lt;/i&gt; a written rule not to use a defeat device.&lt;p&gt;This isn’t a case where manufacturers found a loophole and regulators got upset because they wanted manufacturers to obey the spirit of the rules rather than just the letter. This is a case of manufacturers blatantly breaking the explicit written rules.</text></comment>
<story><title>German regulator says it discovered new illegal software on Daimler diesels</title><url>https://www.wsj.com/articles/daimler-slashes-outlook-on-fresh-diesel-allegations-11561367960?mod=rsswn</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>londons_explore</author><text>Yes, but that won&amp;#x27;t solve the issue.&lt;p&gt;The issue is regulators write regulations for one thing, but want a subtly different thing.&lt;p&gt;If you and I start a game of poker, but rather than winning through skill, I call the FBI and get them to search all your cards, have I broken the rules of poker?  It wasn&amp;#x27;t a written rule not to call the FBI...&lt;p&gt;Regulators across the world have similar gaps in the rules, and both humans and automated design tools will start to exploit them, possibly unknowingly.   Instead they need to make far more watertight rules.   They should simply require all cars to measure their own emissions, and bill the companies for any cars which either mis-measure emissions, or measure more emissions in their lifetime than an allowed limit.  Then manufacturers will have an incentive to upgrade cars in the field.</text></item><item><author>deogeo</author><text>Isn&amp;#x27;t it about time all software&amp;#x2F;hardware in cars should be required to be open-source? There should be no room for secret functionality on something as pervasive and dangerous as cars and trucks. Especially if it&amp;#x27;s also kept secret from their supposed owners.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>thefounder</author><text>Well we know how self regulation worked for Boeing. Now I could see software that registers less emissions than they actually produce and we are back to square one.</text></comment>