Lease this WebApp and get rid of the ads.
Sprout
But a court of LAW doesn't get to
Mon Jan 9, 2017 10:13am
192.86.118.187

convict a defendant just because he holds a certain job.

There need to be FACTS to establish what he ACTUALLY knew and when.

I would say that the fact that something happened under his administration means that he is part of the chain of command. Now, understanding the chain of command means understanding that while responsibility and authority increase as one goes up the chain, the DETAIL of knowledge decreases... The executive is expected to see and understand the big picture, but is not expected to know the details of the relationship between every factory foreman and each employee.

So, at SOME point at SOME level the decision was made to put that code into the cars. Precisely who did that and how many knew about it may never be perfectly known. So, the question is how many levels up from the programmer who wrote the code knew about it? And what did they know. Clearly the programmer knew and his supervisor who directly told him what to do knew. That supervisor got approval from HIS supervisor... But for what? Two or three levels up, did the discussion SPECIFICALLY state EXACTLY how the software engineers would get the car to pass an emissions test? Or was the head of design simply told that the computer folks had figured out a way to pass the emissions tests without costing horsepower. And did htat head of design tell the CEO exactly what had been done? Or simply tell him that the power/emissions problem on that specific model had been resolved with a computer patch.

IMO the key is how many layers were there between the person who DID make the decision to have the cars programmed to run cleaner when they were being tested, and the person who the DA wants to put in jail.


Click here to receive daily updates


Religion and Ethics BBS