Hacker News Reader

Comment by dustinmoris | Hacker News Reader

> Audi said in a statement on Wednesday that it was in the interest of the company, its shareholders and employees to clarify the issues that led to the diesel crisis.

“Until this has happened, the presumption of innocence must prevail,” the spokesman said.

In this case, I don't see how the presumption of innocence can prevail. Let's not forget, this was not a manufacturing error, an oversight or some other engineering "mistake" which could be explained in a plausible way. Someone purposefully engineered a device and software, which had no other purpose than manipulating emission tests with the intent to create an unlawful advantage for the company. The idea, plan and execution of such a software could have only happened by some execs at Volkswagen and Audi. This is a clear criminal offense with clear intend and the only question is how many need to go into jail for this, not if someone should be jailed.

View on HN

No, that's not how it should work. I know what you mean, but the presumption of innocence is there until there is a final decision by a judge. You don't suspend the presumption of innocence just because it seems clear that a felony happened, otherwise it's almost never there.

presumption of innocence is on the individual, not on whether there was a crime or not

e.g. murder, there is no doubt that somebody is guilty, but but all suspects benefit from presumption of innocence.

Precisely what I meant! In my comment I did not accuse any individuals specifically. I said "someone" must have committed a crime here and that this is clear from the case and therefore we cannot presume innocence, just need to focus who are the offenders, but not if there was a criminal offense in the first place.

Yes, a criminal offense took place but we don't even know whether any of the accused are guilty. Knowing that a crime took place is pointless if you can't figure out who is to blame.

That's not entirely true, because even if we don't know who, we can know about the how and why, and try to limit such crimes in the future.

In this specific case, knowing that the crime took place has already led to different and more varied emissions testing.

No, I’m cases of murder it has to be proven that a murder (ie it wasn’t accidental, suicide, etc). There’s also different degrees of murder depending on the circumstances (ranging from self defence through to pre-meditation and even crimes more horrific than that).

It’s not just about proving the perpetrator, it’s about proving the circumstance because there will be different sentencing - and sometimes even different laws - depending on the circumstance.

What can appear to be a suicide can still be murder if the suicide victim had been exploited and sees no way out. Until someone has been in that position, its easy to believe the world is not run by criminals. The UK's NHS don't involve the Police when people attempt suicide, in fact in my experience GP's will give the suicidal person advice on ways to make the suicide work in a painless way. It will never get to court because of patient confidentiality and a GP will almost always be believed over the patient. Its a no win situation for the suicidal individual.

>presumption of innocence is on the individual, not on whether there was a crime or not

This is still wrong. A crime is an act of a person, which fulfills rather strict criteria. Both the legal theory and typical legislation [1] requires, among other, mens rea - guilty mind. Without a specific person convicted, you can't say with certainty there was a guilty mind. Thus indeed, before conviction we can't tell with certainty that there was a crime committed.

In your example of "murder", all we can say with certainty is that a person is dead. Evidence may establish a 3rd party was involved, which would indicate killing (as opposed to accident, natural causes, or self harm). There still remain three distinct possibilities: criminal murder, or the lower culpability of homicide (for example, a negligent homicide), or justified killing (for example, act of self defense). Those possibilities span the whole gamut from culpability to innocence, and warrant much different end results for the alleged perpetrator.

In case of the DieselGate here, investigating & prosecuting is the correct & practical option. We all suspect there was a crime, but there's a reason justice is dispensed via a deliberative process, rather than via mob rule.

Moreover, white collar crimes like the DieselGate usually don't have evidence as clear cut as an official memo saying, "I, hereby undersigned, order my underlings to break the law by doing X, Y, and Z.". A more realistic scenario is a series of emails & phone calls saying, "make the new engine meet the target parameters by this quarter's end", coupled with tacitly ignoring a footnote in an engineer's memo saying, "However we recommend against leaving the high performance mode enabled for production vehicles", along with a nod to a mid level manager who asks, "should we match the high performance mode to that of our competitors' car models X, Y, and Z?". In which case establishing responsibility & culpability will take some thorough work.

[1] aside of the small set of strict liability crimes where the event/fact alone constitutes a crime

Not sure how they want to get out that. VW committed to be guilty in the deal they made with the EPA if I remember well. So basically they are saying "yes, we are guilty but until we are found guilty again please consider us innocent for the time being". Somehow I have the impression that the EPA seal will bite VWs, Audis and their management's asses down the road.

Audi is not trying to get out of anything. They are saying that they will not throw an ex employee under the bus in the media before he/she is convicted of the crime. Audi do assist the prossecution and will probably push for a repayment of bonuses via their own lawsuit, though.

“Presumption of Innocence” applies to the state prosecuting individuals. It exists to counter the massive power imbalance between the state with its effectively unlimited resources and time to put together its case versus citizens that may not even have a lawyer in some jurisdictions.

It dies NOT apply to individuals making up their own minds as to what happened and who was responsible for it, and then choosing for themselves how to respond.

So no, he can’t be jailed without a trial. But we can choose to decide what we think happened without waiting for a trial, if we wish.

You can decide whatever you like about whoever you like. Inside your head you are truly free to judge whomever you want however you want.

You may be found to have defamed someone if you go around stating your opinions as facts and the court disagrees that they are facts.

Which the court must ascertain the truth or falsehood to before rendering judgement; which given the information the court has on hand, would be dangerous ground for a lawyer to tread upon in this case.

At the most; a prudent judge would likely allow it while the case is still being tried. You'd have to deal with defamation only after the completion of the criminal probe, where a suit could be levied under the auspices of "we were deemed innocent".

IANAL, and this is assuming American court procedure; things may be different in Germany.

Why does every newspaper refer to "alleged" etc until a verdict is reached?

Like with the Mueller case? I see an awful lot of people in the news corporations and government stating "facts" of "crimes" for which there was no prosecution, because there wasn't any or not enough evidence to move forward on a conviction. Which verdict was reached there? Not to turn this political, just showing what you are saying isn't true though and a very big major case with 2 years of media hysteria to back it. Nothing has been proven in a court of law, when it comes to the President anyway. I see no presumption of innocence by CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, LA Times, or practically any other major "news" corporation.

Because media report on events. There is someone saying not-yet-president groped them without permission? They can report on it. It's called free press.

I agree with you about libel and slander, but the phrase “presumption of innocence” goes far beyond just watching what you claim to be objective facts.

For example, what if Alice thinks her employee Bob is dishonest, but he hasn’t been convicted of theft? Can she transfer him to a job that does not involve handling money or procurement?

I think, “yes.” Alice can decide that Bob is not a good fit for a job involving money and trust. Bob might then sue for “constructive dismissal” if the new position is not commensurate with his experience.

The lawyers are the only winners in most such lawsuits, so perhaps Alice settles with Bob. He quits and receives severance.

Bob then applies for a job with Carol. If Alice claims Bob was dishonest, Bob might sue Alice and win substantial damages.

Now what about Carol? What if she questions Bob about Alice’s clams and does not believe his explanation of events? Or if a number of people come forward during the ruckus to tell how they feel Bob was dishonest with them?

“Presumption of Innocence” for Carol would oblige her to hire Bob anyways: It means treating Bob as innocent of the accusations in every way until he is convicted in court.

I claim she has no such obligation. Perhaps it is imprudent of Alice to accuse Bob of dishonesty without being able to prove it, but nevertheless Carol has a right to decide for herself whether she wishes to hire Bob based on her own judgment.

tl;dr:

“Presumption of innocence” is a very strict standard that only applies to the state. People have a right to decide for themselves whether people are innocent or guilty, but just as you say, some actions based on those decisions come with tradeoffs and consequences.

> “Presumption of Innocence” applies to the state prosecuting individuals. It exists to counter the massive power imbalance between the state with its effectively unlimited resources and time to put together its case versus citizens that may not even have a lawyer in some jurisdictions.

It also serves to avoid ignorant, heated lynch mobs. As with free speech, societal buy-in is a precondition to precluding the government from taking actions.

> You don't suspend the presumption of innocence just because it seems clear that a felony happened.

This is exactly what you do its innocent until proven guilty the amount of publicly available evidence proves their guilt.

Innocent until proven guilty means that there has to be a trial, not simply "evidence". The role of the prosecutor is to prove someone guilty, and unless they do so, the person is innocent.

I know this is, in day-to-day parlance, irrelevant. We see the amount of evidence, we form an opinion in our mind. It's not that I think Stadler never knew anything. But this being HN, the discussion could be a bit more elevated than in a pub :) Plus, "presumption of innocence" is a legal term, I think it is worth discussing it with a "lawful" mindset.

Even if you shoot somebody live on TV, you're presumed innocent until proven guilty. Because you might be found innocent after all, however unlikely that may seem to the casual observer.

>Someone purposefully engineered a device and software

Not really. The general type of Engine Control Unit (ECU) Volkswagen incl Audi uses can be customized. The AdBlue control can be customized too, which makes sense given that the same basic ECU can used between different models. What they did is set the customization parameters (a data model) in such a way that it turned off AdBlue injection unless the input data suggested it was on a test run. They didn't actually develop a dedicated device and didn't even develop software in a strict sense. Calling it a "device" is a legal term.

Somebody actually bought an ECU and analyzed it: https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scand...

>The idea, plan and execution of such a software could have only happened by some execs at Volkswagen and Audi.

Agreed. The question is who specifically, tho.

this was also the case for VW/Audi vehicles which were not equipped with AdBlue. I had a 2013 TDI that simply would do a special burn off on occasion to remove build up.

I cannot even find out if that car would have been repairable. Would the fix to the US 2.0L TDI engines in VW at that time even been worthwhile to tweak? I remember reading that they even claimed at one time they could just fix it with a software update

What is this the third law of robotics?

Some guy solders it, some guy programs it, some guy configures it, it violates the law and no one is guilty?

Does splitting hairs about the execution change the fact that some person or group of people deliberately intended to commit a crime?

If you want to say it could have been an accident because of xyz implementation details, OK, but I don't see anything like that.

Is there a TL;DR for the video ?

The way I understood it was that in case of no steering input and somewhat constant load, the ECU would "assume" the engine is being tested (on a rolling road) and then would start burning rich which would reduce combustion temperature and reduce NoX.

What is the role of manipulating SCR here ? Was the ECU increasing AdBlue injection during testing ? OR does it suppress AdBlue during normal cycles ? (That would be horrible)

>In this case, I don't see how the presumption of innocence can prevail

This is a dangerous idea, and it makes me afraid of whether the young people coming up even understand what presumption of innocence-- or free speech, or whatever-- even means. People seem more than eager to shut down rights when it doesn't align with their politics.

You said it yourself: you don't know how many and which of the execs are to blame. Presumption of innocence is assuming that all of the accused individually are innocent until proven guilty.

There are certainly executives that should be punished, but what about the engineers?

Every single P.E. involved should lose their license.

Are all of these undisputed facts? Suppose there's an entirely different reason, one not previously picked up and run by the media, but is actually the truth?

Without presumption of innocence people will just be railroaded by the state, public opinion, or both.

> I don't see how the presumption of innocence can prevail

That's alright. You're not in a position that requires you to.

..or did you want to find out?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com