OT: Volkswagen

[Don Y]

I'm *really* at a loss for how this sort of thing can happen. I mean, every car you make with this "hack" in it is a potential WITNESS for the prosecution -- IN PERPETUITY! It's not like you can make all evidence of the hack "disappear" once the vehicle has left your factory!

I can see how incredibly EASY it would be to write software to notice the (typical) "testing in progress" conditions and "play nice" only during those times -- throwing the rules out the window at all other times!

But, I can't imagine anyone with half a brain thinking this is the sort of thing they could get away with!

I can *almost* believe the GM ignition switch scandal was just incompetence and "wishful thinking" (maybe it WON'T be a problem?? Maybe no one will notice it? We can always claim we are INCOMPETENT... etc.). But, the VW issue is akin to a burglar robbing a bank -- there's no question as to the IL-legality of his actions!

The unfortunate consequence of all this is it will just be a fine. If a human commits a crime, he goes to jail. If a BUSINESS ("Corporations are people, too" -- Mitt Romney) commits one, they get a fine/wrist slap.

(Perhaps we should revoke their business license for a few years to inflict the equivalent of "imprisonment" on them -- deny them the FREEDOM to operate as they normally could? Of course, that would effectively kill many businesses -- just like incarceration kills many families, etc.!)

The same sort of stupidity appears evident in the Feenigs I-10 shooting incidents: if you've really committed these crimes, why would you give up control of the single most incriminating piece of evidence -- the actual gun, used?? Just for *money*??

Are people REALLY this stupid? Short sighted?? *Or*, ARROGANT?? (they're not smart enough to catch *me*!)

[trader_4]

All your credibility went out the window when you dragged Romney into this. I mean, WTF? Nobody accused Romney of committing corporate fraud and he has nothing whatever to do with VW.

Apparently you're stupid enough to drag Romney into this, so yes, I guess that level of stupidity does exist.

[Don Y]

Dear Moron, Rather than take the time to explain the legal standing that corporation status confers on an entity in the US, I opted to pick a WELL KNOWN event that folks *should* be able to recognize/remember to "jog their memories".

Please indicate where my comments accuse Romney of

*anything* other than making the "Corporations are people, too". Or, do you have a problem with reading comprehension??

You, unfortunately, are an obvious partisan and consider all comments in that context. So, as such, disqualify yourself from any meaningful conversations.

So, I guess you ARE right in your comment, below: "that level of stupidity does exist" -- YOU deal with it each day when you look at yourself in the mirror!

*plonk*

[Frank]

VW made the serious mistake of not contributing to the Democrat party.

If so, the EPA would have not discovered this.

[gfretwell]

[gfretwell]

These are the same people who thought invading Russia was a good idea.

[tony944]

VW made the serious mistake of not contributing to the Democrat party.

If so, the EPA would have not discovered this.

[trader_4]

Sure that's a great substitute for explaining the legal standing of corporations. Besides, the Romney reference still makes no sense, because if corporations were people, then they would go to jail. So how again is Romney clarifying anything? Not that it needs clarifying at all, because so far I don't see anything that shows people are confused or don't understand what a corporation is about.

Yeah, YOU dragged Romney into this, but I'm the partisan. WTF? Also, the whole premise has no merit, sure you can't put a corporation in jail, Duh..., but execs can and have been sentenced and have served time.

It sure does, you've demonstrated it. This does too:

"(Perhaps we should revoke their business license for a few years to inflict the equivalent of "imprisonment" on them -- deny them the FREEDOM to operate as they normally could?"

[Frank]

Same reason I gave a sarcastic answer.

You could have named the president of GM.

Lately hearing why Argentina is no longer a prosperous nation. Too much of corporations and government getting in bed with each other.

It's happening here.

[Don Y]

I've anticipated the discrimination that folks would apply to corporations vs. "people" -- and sought to remove it from the issue. I.e., if corporations ARE "people" (in Romney's simplistic explanation to the Electorate), then folks should be able to explain why THOSE "people" should be treated differently from other *real* "people".

I cited a well known public personna's RECENT public comment I know many other people who have uttered the same thing -- but suspect no one here would know "my Uncle Fred" or "my local barber", etc.

Of course you can put a corporation in jail! You can restrict its freedom! Or, do you assume "jail" has to be a physical building with tangible, corporeal occupants?

This is the direct analogy of taking away an *individual's* freedom as punishment for a crime. If fining a corporation is acceptable, why aren't all crimes involving humans resolved with fines??

If The Corporation is guilty of the crime, then why shouldn't The Corporation be held responsible? Or, are you advocating that the punishment for any crime committed by a corporation should be uniformly inflicted on the corporation's CEO? Unless he/she can find someone else "more directly culpable"?

The Corporation is a legal entity. "Corporations are people, too" Why shouldn't the corporation incur the same sorts of penalties that an individual incurs?

If you are willing to incarcerate a PERSON for a year for a particular crime, should you deprive a corporation of one year's worth of REVENUES for that same crime? Or, perhaps prohibit it from doing *business* for one year?

Ah, but that could put the corporation out of business! Just like incarcerating the bread winner in a family could inflict harm on other "innocent parties" -- spouse, children, etc.

What's the difference? Besides an ARBITRARY one??

[Don Y]

Yeah, I guess they hoped for a similar "short term victory, but eventual defeat!" :-/

[philo]

They of course should not have done it...and are getting a huge fine.

They will recover but when the stock bottoms out...it will be a good time for investors to buy.

That's the way business works.

[Don Y]

No one would have recognized/attributed the comment to anyone other than Romney.

Power seeks power. We inherently associate with those "like us". I'll wager your house isn't the most expensive nor least expensive in your neighborhood. I'll also guess you're not a "Professional" living in a neighborhood full of "Laborers" -- or vice versa.

Organizations that control significant assets (monies, resources, markets, etc.) *tend* to look to other such organizations as their "peers".

Some seem to think The Private Sector is the answer to all problems! They tend to forget the colossal f*ckups that The Private Sector has inflicted on us. (but, that's OK -- cuz The Market will "fix" those problems"; any collateral damage is "simply unfortunate"... cost of doing business!)

[Tony Hwang]

[Ed Pawlowski]

I can see where GM did not know about the problem until it showed up a couple of times. After that, they were deceitful, cheap, and stupid.

I vote for stupid. He may have thought pawning the gun was his protection. No one would ever find it one out of his possession. Police would never find it.

[Moe DeLoughan]

Since there is no "Democrat Party" in the US, you've just shown the world you don't even know your own country's politics. Congratulations on having made it through sixth grade.

[Moe DeLoughan]

This is the consequence of our comparatively recent preference for short-term careers with any particular employer. In the past, most people worked their way up in the organization and spent much if not most of their career with the same company. Result: terrific loyalty, plus in-depth knowledge of the product and the corporation's structure.

Nowadays, the ideal is to spend but a few years at any company, then move on. There's no value anymore placed on loyalty or institutional knowledge. The result: execs are free to foul their current nest, then move on before the shit hits the fan. Once it does, they're long gone, so they won't be held accountable. Knowing they won't be held accountable makes it very easy to make or approve incredibly stupid, short-sighted ideas like this one at Volkswagon.

That may usually be the case, but not always. The owner of that peanut butter factory in Georgia just got a very long jail sentence - so long, he'll probably die inside. It would only be just, since his decisions to ignore the health hazards of his plant and products directly led to the deaths of a number of people.

[Don Y]

Exactly. Their "crime" was in putting through a change order surreptitiously: "Let's hope no one notices that we made this change to a component". Prior to that, there doesn't appear to be anything other than incompetence or simple ignorance.

I don't know. I can't believe you wouldn't bury it deep in the woods, grind it to dust on a grinding wheel, drop it in the ocean, etc. I.e., you can't protect against someone *seeing* you commit the crime. But, holding onto key evidence seems a no-brainer. Like driving *your* car to rob a bank! :-/

[There was a Columbo episode about this -- the murderer unable to part with his "beloved" weapon and, in doing so, leaving himself open to arrest]

[sms]

Given that there is no such party, that's unlikely.

[trader_4]

I think you'll find that in the case of GM, they continued to use the bad switches for years after they knew there was apparently a problem. Only later did they put through that change order to use a different switch and still not do a notification/recall. The difference in the switches was a pin that was ~1/8" longer.

If you watch the first 48 show, there are dummies doing the pawn shop thing and worse. Like using a cell phone from the guy they just murdered to call friends and family. Or using the murder victims credit cards to make purchases. A lot of it comes down to greed. Burying the gun, you get nothing for it and the are so dumb or desperate to get high that the $100 looks worth it.