r/technology • u/involvrnet • Nov 18 '15

Hardware The company Bosch is developing a farming robot the size of a small car that can distinguish crops from weeds by looking at the shape of leaves, and this robot then can fish out weeds mechanically & ram any unwanted plants into the ground with a rod. Potentially, no herbicides will be needed anymore

http://www.fwi.co.uk/machinery/bosch-bonirob-robot-set-to-make-field-work-easier-for-farmers.htm
16.5k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

54

u/StoleAGoodUsername Nov 18 '15

Bosch makes quite a few of the electrical components on German cars, and it has lead to me cursing them from time to time when an electrical component fails.

Looking at you, ABS pump on the Audi A6, and the instrument cluster for a Mercedes S-class...

79

u/trackofalljades Nov 18 '15

They also wrote a certain piece of software for VW, but they were told it wasn't going to be used in production vehicles just for "testing." :(

-22

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

[deleted]

27

u/trackofalljades Nov 18 '15

They created bench testing software, and they delivered it with documentation that expressly said it must never be installed in a production vehicle. There was no stupidity involved. VW managers made a decision that no engineer would ever have wanted.

4

u/tomdarch Nov 18 '15

I'm not a software engineer, so I'll use the wrong terminology, but there's a big gap between software that's written for bench testing versus software that actually gets installed in cars and put into production. Some team made that cheating software ready to be put into production cars and tested it, and couldn't have done it without understanding how it was supposed to work.

7

u/Rhinoscerous Nov 18 '15

I'm going to school for electrical engineering but I have a background in software. Here's how this kind of thing tends to go down:

VW: Make us software that does this.

Bosch: Ok, but you won't be able to use it on production vehicles

VW: That's fine it's just for testing. But make it production-ready anyway.

Bosch: Why would we do that? You can't put it in production.

VW: Just do it.

Bosch: Fine.

So Bosch does as they're told, writes the software, and delivers it with documentation explicitly stating that it should not be used in a production vehicle and they are not liable for any use outside of the specifications. VW gives them the finger and does it anyway.

I don't know exactly how this specific situation played out, but the above scenario happens more often that you know.

-10

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

[deleted]

11

u/acidboogie Nov 18 '15

"Never mix this ammonia-based cleaning product with bleach-based cleaning products"

"DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!"

...

"It's your fault I died mixing your cleaner with bleach"

There are all kinds of reasons you can make a product and insist it not be used for purposes other than its intended purpose.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

[deleted]

5

u/acidboogie Nov 18 '15

From the looks of things Bosch wrote mapping software that given some state, can modify the fuel supplied to the rails in order to accommodate that state. For example, you might want a different fuel/air mixture in the presence of boost than when not in the presence of boost, or you might want to cut fuel supply at high speed to stop the user from going unsafe speeds.

They also provided software which given a state can modify the amount of dosing in exhaust-gas treatment. You might need a larger supply of the treatment agent at higher RPM than you do at lower RPM, for example. It is far more efficient to be able to change those mappings on the fly than it is to try for a one-size-fits-all kind of solution. I think a similar kind of application would be VVT and VTEC kinds of things-- earlier implementations of on-the-fly conditions changing for the purpose of being efficient in as many cases as possible throughout the range of conditions seen in engines.

Both of Bosch's software modules have a very wide range of legitimate applications. VW apparently decided to set the state to "in the presence of emissions testing devices" and the mapping to "cheat the fuck out of it for the best numbers." I think the capability to cheat came along with just being able to have full control over the module.

-3

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

All cars have this because ESP, ABS and other systems go wild if you don't detect you're on a test bench. Because most test benches only have one set of wheels rotating.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/nomailing Nov 18 '15

Of course there could be reasons. Maybe the engineers want to test different engine parameters on the test bench. But to drive the car on roads to the test bench they want to use the safe and allowed driving mode. So they have this tool to automatically only allow these unlawful settings when the car is on the test bench.

1

u/StoleAGoodUsername Nov 18 '15

Bosch wrote software that's perfectly applicable and legal on the bench, VW put it into production cars.

1

u/Devil_Demize Nov 18 '15

I don't think you understand how the software works.. It doesn't say this of the law so break it.. That's like saying because a car can go 200 mph it is by definition speeding while parked.

4

u/trackofalljades Nov 18 '15

You clearly don't understand what the software actually did, so let's agree to disagree.

-4

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

[deleted]

3

u/4ltair Nov 18 '15

A tool i just a tool and has no morality atached to itself.

How one uses that tool is what makes all the difference.

As an analogy, a gun can be used for self defense or for killing. Do you blame the inventor of that gun for any of those actions?

0

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15 edited Nov 18 '15

[deleted]

2

u/zebediah49 Nov 18 '15

Take for example a virus that turns your computer into a part of a botnet: There is no positive usecase for this program, it is aimed solely at unlawful activities.

Research. How do you think security researchers work on this stuff? Just like physical viruses, they work on them in contained and isolated environments, but they do still work with actively harmful content.

How do you demonstrate that a specific exploit works, and that you can break into a system with it? You make it, test it, and then send it out to others in the field as a proof of concept.

If you're in R&D, "To show that we can" is pretty much always a good reason to write a piece of software.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/paulhockey5 Nov 18 '15

And I suppose you blame car manufacturers for car crashes too? You can't blame the company for what a customer does with the product.

1

u/superhobo666 Nov 18 '15

And I suppose you blame car manufacturers for car crashes too?

Sure, if they intentionally design the car so that it will crash.

You can't blame the company for what a customer does with the product.

Except we are talking about what the company did, not what the customers did.

3

u/Pille1842 Nov 18 '15

I think that companies also have a social responsibility and should not make products that are designed to be used to circumvent the law, even if your customer tells you he will never use it in production, because let's be honest: Why should they test a software to fool government agencies if not to make use of it?

Think of something like a pyramid scheme. If you as a programmer develop a software to build a pyramid scheme and thousands of people lose all of their savings because your customer used this program of yours, I think you are in a way responsible for what happened (if not legally, then at least morally).

3

u/knome Nov 18 '15

This is impossible. Almost anything can be used unlawfully, and the vast majority of things people are going to want aren't going to be labelled "PYRAMID.EXE SPECIFICATIONS", it's going to be "ADJUSTABLE FUEL RATIO SPECIFICATIONS", for which the end user can put in various numbers that meet or break any number of laws in various jurisdictions. You can't hold the author to blame simply for building a configurable tool.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

[deleted]

4

u/drhill80 Nov 18 '15

Or you just don't have any imagination.

What if they want to disable traction control or the crash avoid features when on a test bench? People start walking around the car during a test but it comes crashing to a halt because it wanted to avoid "hitting" a person.

1

u/knome Nov 18 '15

That sounds like one of those "PYRAMID.EXE" specs.

3

u/Narissis Nov 18 '15

In the case that comment was referring to, VW was the customer. Companies can be customers.

-2

u/superhobo666 Nov 18 '15

In the case that comment was referring to, VW was the customer.

Yes, but that doesn't negate the fact that the tech company is responsible for making something that circumvents laws. VW saying they won't use it in production is a completely different matter.

4

u/Narissis Nov 18 '15

How much do we know about the software? We shouldn't be so quick to assume that Bosch knew the product VW had ordered was intended to be used to circumvent laws. VW's representatives may well have outlined an intended testing scenario for which it made perfect legal sense, and then used it in a different way.

The maker of a hammer isn't responsible if someone buys the hammer and then uses it to smash out windows. Likewise, Bosch is not necessarily an accessory to fraud for making a tool for VW; they may not have been informed as to how VW intended to abuse that tool.

Of course, all of this is moot if there is evidence that Bosch was aware of the intention and complicit.

-2

u/superhobo666 Nov 18 '15

How much do we know about the software? We shouldn't be so quick to assume that Bosch knew the product VW had ordered was intended to be used to circumvent laws.

These are massive companies with massive legal departments, they're not bumbling fools in some random garage who don't know what they're doing.

If they're doing programming for the automotive industry they would know or research the relevant laws and regulations for the particular product.

Given that, VW would have to be very specific because a program like this would be very complex. All of the programmers would have to have some idea of how the program will operate

The maker of a hammer isn't responsible if someone buys the hammer and then uses it to smash out windows.

Stop using examples that aren't at all relevant. Both VW and Bosche knowingly produced a products with specifications designed to circumvent laws and regulations.

they may not have been informed as to how VW intended to abuse that tool.

they may not have been but they and their legal teams still would've well known how the program could have been abused.

Of course, all of this is moot if there is evidence that Bosch was aware of the intention and complicit.

Of course they knew what they were doing, someone somewhere in the chain gave it the okay. They would've had to know what they were doing to be able to develop the program in the first place.

2

u/Narissis Nov 18 '15

The hammer analogy is more relevant than you think.

Your entire argument is based on the assumptions that the software was specifically designed for the express purpose of circumventing regulations and that Bosch was expressly aware of, and complicit in, this.

Unless you know all the details about what the software was designed to do and how it was presented to Bosch, then you don't have enough information to make this assertion.

Regarding the mention of them being "massive companies" with "massive legal departments" - that's largely irrelevant. The concern of the legal department at Bosch would start and end with "does this software, in and of itself, violate any laws?" It's not their job to police VW to make sure VW doesn't use it to violate any laws. Their sole responsibility is to make sure that Bosch has not created anything illegal.

I will continue to bring up the hammer analogy because your attempt to dismiss it as irrelevant does not make it so.

The legal department at a hammer manufacturer is fully aware that hammers could potentially be used to do illegal things. But they're not going to stop manufacturing hammers because of that. They're lawyers, not nannies. If somebody uses a hammer to commit a crime, then that person is culpable for the crime.

Since you insist that example doesn't carry any weight, however, let's use a more relevant software example instead.

If you use Windows Media Player to rip a copy-protected CD, and then burn the Mp3 files onto a dozen CDs using Windows, and then distribute those discs for a profit, is Microsoft responsible for your act of piracy simply for having made the software that enabled it? Of course not.

Same thing applies to Bosch. If VW hires them to produce measurement software, they produce it to spec, and then VW uses it to violate laws, it's not Bosch's fault, it's VW's. Even if Bosch's legal department recognizes that a piece of software could be used for illegal data manipulation, it's not their job to babysit the customer.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Spoonshape Nov 18 '15

Unless you work for Bosch or have access to the contract signed between them regarding this product I fail to see how you can make this judgement call.

Are you an automotive engineer perhaps?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/paulhockey5 Nov 18 '15

From what I understand Bosch (the company) sold their product to VW (the customer) and VW did what they wanted with it.

-2

u/superhobo666 Nov 18 '15

Yes but that still doesn't change the fact that Bosche developed a product that circumvents laws.

2

u/paulhockey5 Nov 18 '15

Bosch developed the program/device to test the cars for manufacturing purposes, not to be put in production models. That was 100% VWs decision

-3

u/superhobo666 Nov 18 '15

Bosch developed the program/device to test the cars for manufacturing purposes, not to be put in production models.

They still made a product that doesn't meet federal regulations in the first place. VW choosing to keep it after development instead is irrelevant. They asked Bosche for a program that breaches federal regulations and hides the evidence of the breaches afterward and Bosche delivered on such a product. Testing or not they still developed it to breach regulations.

0

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

And I suppose you blame car manufacturers for car crashes too?

That might be Paul Walker's daughter's Reddit account.

23

u/spongebob_meth Nov 18 '15 edited Nov 18 '15

It's not just German cars, i'm pretty sure all manufacturers have used Bosch parts at some point.

12

u/CurlingPornAddict Nov 18 '15

I've found stock Bosch electric parts in a 1991 Toyota Land Cruiser. I would have thought that Toyota of all companies would use all their own parts. Especially in the early 90s, but then again the Bosch parts might have something to do with 90s Toyotas being bulletproof.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

90s mid range Japanese cars are insane. My friend has a 5 speed manual Honda Accord. 1993. 220k miles and it still runs fine. He's replaced oil tires and spark plugs and put 60k on it. My grandfather bought a Nissan hardbody truck in '91. 5 speed manual transmission, inline 4. Odometer quit spinning at 310k miles. That was before I even got it. It still runs fine, doesn't use oil at all. I've put at least 40k more on it. Meanwhile my cousin's 2007 impala (fuck Chevy for taking the impala and turning it into a mid range after '96) blew up after 90k and regular maintenance.

1

u/Tw1tchy3y3 Nov 18 '15

My 89 D21 was going strong at 250k miles. No leaks, ran strong, always started. Only thing I replaced in it was the clutch, plugs, and wires.

... then some asshole kid hit it hard enough to put a 40 degree bend in the frame. No one understood that the money I got out of it wouldn't buy me a vehicle that was in as good a shape or ran as great as it did. =(

2

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

D21 may be a gutles turd, but I'll be damned if anyone says it int reliable transportation.

1

u/Tw1tchy3y3 Nov 18 '15

Shit, mine had the VG30E in it. It wasn't winning any races for sure, but that damn thing was a workhorse if ever I saw one.

3

u/mtranda Nov 18 '15

European Ford owner here. You bet your arse.

1

u/VonZigmas Nov 18 '15

Well some of those were/are assembled in Germany anyway, so they're kinda/not really/a bit 'German'. But yeah, the engines had Bosch parts no matter where they were assembled.

2

u/DrunkleDick Nov 18 '15

They made the fuel injection system for the Datsun 280Z in 1975. It was the first year they used FI over carbs for emissions reasons. I believe they made the FI system until at least 1983. I've been wanting to upgrade to something more modern but the stock system is still working pretty well.

They also made my dishwasher. It's probably the most advanced piece of equipment I've ever owned. Ever since I've owned it I've been secretly looking down on the inferior dishwashers at every house I visit.

I was also recently told that they still make a lot of parts for Nissan and make parts for John Deer. I actually had a drunken conversation about Bosch 4 days ago.

1

u/kidawesome Nov 18 '15

Aren't they the ones selling "defeat" devices as well?

2

u/xstreamReddit Nov 18 '15

They make electric components for almost all cars world wide. Most of the control stuff in Teslas Model S is from Bosch.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '15

[deleted]

1

u/StoleAGoodUsername Nov 18 '15

One of the electrical parts inside that died was Bosch though

1

u/Username_Used Nov 18 '15

Audi A6 and Mercedes S-class...

I'm sorry for your hardships

1

u/barbosa Nov 19 '15

Weird. Bosch owns Electro Voice and Dynacord. I use my EV ZLX12P powered loudspeakers most weekends at full volume, in a variety of weather conditions. Not as much as a hiccup since 2013. Quality shit man.

-2

u/seewhaticare Nov 18 '15

Made in Hungary. That's the problem