'Defeat Device' PowerPoint Presentation is Volkswagen's Latest Embarrassment

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

If you want your nefarious plan to stay on the down low, try not to make a PowerPoint presentation on it.

That’s an obvious takeaway from the New York Times report that details a bombshell discovery made by investigators probing documents and laptops related to Volkswagen’s diesel emissions scandal.

It’s already known that Audi designed the infamous “defeat device” at the heart of the scandal back in 1999, and that Volkswagen waited six years before deciding to use it.

But corporate culture being what it is, company representatives needed some pointers on the illicit technology. And thus, the incriminating PowerPoint was born.

The New York Times report, drawn from two sources who viewed the document, says the PowerPoint presentation was crafted by a senior technology executive in 2006, after the company made the decision to use the defeat device in its new “clean diesels”:

Just a few pages long, the 2006 presentation included a graph that explained the process for testing the amount of pollution spewing from a car. In a laboratory, regulators would try to replicate a variety of conditions on the road.

The pattern of those tests, the presentation said, was entirely predictable. And a piece of code embedded in the software that controlled the engine could recognize that pattern, activating equipment to reduce emissions just for testing purposes.

The technology was subsequently refined to recognize other signs of regulatory testing, according to hacker Felix Domke, who analyzed the software with the finest of combs.

Volkswagen and its executives failed to respond to requests for comment from the newspaper. The report doesn’t name the PowerPoint’s creator, and the question of who saw the presentation remains unanswered.

It’s possible some Volkswagen heads are still due for the chopping block, but the company has already paid an astronomical price for its consumer deception.

Besides sales that resemble a jetliner’s trajectory following a double bird strike, the company has carved out $18.2 billion from its struggling operation to fund last week’s settlement with U.S. consumers and regulators.

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
8 of 91 comments
  • VoGo VoGo on Apr 27, 2016

    The B&B loves to criticize the NYT, but you see, this is what they do. Actual journalism. Journalism may be a dying industry, but some of us still believe that an informed voter is essential for democracy.

    • See 5 previous
    • ToddAtlasF1 ToddAtlasF1 on Apr 29, 2016

      @Lou_BC Do you even know who Bernie Sanders is? Do you know who Vince Foster was? Do you know who Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, and Kathleen Willey are? Do you know what Whitewater was? Do you know what Hillary Care was, or about Hillary's midas touch in the stock market? Do you know about the Clintons having to return the $200K in furniture they stole last time they vacated the White House, or the $80K in damages they had to reimburse the US for after they looted? Do you know about Hillary being fired from the Watergate commission, or about her laughing about a child rape victim she crucified on the stand years after the fact on tape? The media takes advantage of willful ignoramuses like you by reporting only what furthers their statist agenda. Your lack of character makes you easy prey for propagandists. You seem proud of how malleable you are for the people that will strip your rights. Pitiful.

  • Robert.Walter Robert.Walter on Apr 28, 2016

    Rogue engineers Piëch and Wintercorn, sitting in a tree, Set the tone years ago, For all we now see...

  • W Conrad I'm not afraid of them, but they aren't needed for everyone or everywhere. Long haul and highway driving sure, but in the city, nope.
  • Jalop1991 In a manner similar to PHEV being the correct answer, I declare RPVs to be the correct answer here.We're doing it with certain aircraft; why not with cars on the ground, using hardware and tools like Telsa's "FSD" or GM's "SuperCruise" as the base?Take the local Uber driver out of the car, and put him in a professional centralized environment from where he drives me around. The system and the individual car can have awareness as well as gates, but he's responsible for the driving.Put the tech into my car, and let me buy it as needed. I need someone else to drive me home; hit the button and voila, I've hired a driver for the moment. I don't want to drive 11 hours to my vacation spot; hire the remote pilot for that. When I get there, I have my car and he's still at his normal location, piloting cars for other people.The system would allow for driver rest period, like what's required for truckers, so I might end up with multiple people driving me to the coast. I don't care. And they don't have to be physically with me, therefore they can be way cheaper.Charge taxi-type per-mile rates. For long drives, offer per-trip rates. Offer subscriptions, including miles/hours. Whatever.(And for grins, dress the remote pilots all as Johnnie.)Start this out with big rigs. Take the trucker away from the long haul driving, and let him be there for emergencies and the short haul parts of the trip.And in a manner similar to PHEVs being discredited, I fully expect to be razzed for this brilliant idea (not unlike how Alan Kay wasn't recognized until many many years later for his Dynabook vision).
  • B-BodyBuick84 Not afraid of AV's as I highly doubt they will ever be %100 viable for our roads. Stop-and-go downtown city or rush hour highway traffic? I can see that, but otherwise there's simply too many variables. Bad weather conditions, faded road lines or markings, reflective surfaces with glare, etc. There's also the issue of cultural norms. About a decade ago there was actually an online test called 'The Morality Machine' one could do online where you were in control of an AV and choose what action to take when a crash was inevitable. I think something like 2.5 million people across the world participated? For example, do you hit and most likely kill the elderly couple strolling across the crosswalk or crash the vehicle into a cement barrier and almost certainly cause the death of the vehicle occupants? What if it's a parent and child? In N. America 98% of people choose to hit the elderly couple and save themselves while in Asia, the exact opposite happened where 98% choose to hit the parent and child. Why? Cultural differences. Asia puts a lot of emphasis on respecting their elderly while N. America has a culture of 'save/ protect the children'. Are these AV's going to respect that culture? Is a VW Jetta or Buick Envision AV going to have different programming depending on whether it's sold in Canada or Taiwan? how's that going to effect legislation and legal battles when a crash inevitibly does happen? These are the true barriers to mass AV adoption, and in the 10 years since that test came out, there has been zero answers or progress on this matter. So no, I'm not afraid of AV's simply because with the exception of a few specific situations, most avenues are going to prove to be a dead-end for automakers.
  • Mike Bradley Autonomous cars were developed in Silicon Valley. For new products there, the standard business plan is to put a barely-functioning product on the market right away and wait for the early-adopter customers to find the flaws. That's exactly what's happened. Detroit's plan is pretty much the opposite, but Detroit isn't developing this product. That's why dealers, for instance, haven't been trained in the cars.
  • Dartman https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-fighter-jets-air-force-6a1100c96a73ca9b7f41cbd6a2753fdaAutonomous/Ai is here now. The question is implementation and acceptance.
Next