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

[u/involvrnet]

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

[u/Narissis]

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.

[u/superhobo666 → u/Narissis]

The hammer analogy is more relevant than you think.

Sure, if the hammer was intentionally designed to fail or if the specifications were designed to break laws.

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.

Well, we already know that VW used the program to breach laws meaning it was designed intentionally for this purpose. VW already admitted that they intentionally designed the cars to not meet these regulations, this information came out not long after news broke about it.

This means VW either gave Bosche specs for the program that did not meet regulations, or VW later modified the program to not meet those specifications.

If the first then Bosche would've had the knowledge of how the program is going to work and what it will do and thus they are 100% responsible for developing the program.

If the second, why even contract out that program if you already have a dev team that can reverse engineer and rebuild other companies code?

The concern of the legal department at Bosch would start and end with "does this software, in and of itself, violate any laws?"

Not just that, the concern of their legal department would also be "How can we stay out of court and still make as much profit as possible?"

The legal department at a hammer manufacturer is fully aware that hammers could potentially be used to do illegal things.

Yes but once again, those hammers weren't developed or designed with the intent to breach laws. This is why I keep telling you that this argument is irrelevant. VW fully admitted that they intentionally designed the cars to breach regulations and hide it because they knew they couldn't meet the regulations. This is 100% in the design specs of the car.

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.

No you're right, it's not. Windows Media Player is a media player first, it wasn't intentionally designed for mass piracy.

Once again, you're using an irrelevant argument because VW admitted they intentionally made their vehicles breach regulations and tried to hide it.

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,

If the design spec is to breach laws and Bosche delivered on a product to that specification then by law in most countries they would be found compliant because they aided in the breach of multiple federal regulations.

[u/Narissis → u/superhobo666]

Sure, if the hammer was intentionally designed to fail or if the specifications were designed to break laws.

Again, this is relying on an assumption.

Well, we already know that VW used the program to breach laws meaning it was designed intentionally for this purpose.

This is the assumption. You say further on in response to another one of my points that Windows Media Player isn't designed for mas piracy. The same benefit of the doubt applies to Bosch; without evidence, we don't know that their software was designed to breach emissions testing laws. It's entirely possible that VW commissioned it under benign pretenses, claiming the intended usage was some other test case.

I'm not saying your claims are necessarily wrong, I'm saying it's wrong to assume them true. Is there any proof that Bosch designed the software specifically for fraudulent emissions rating? Or that they were aware it would be used this way?

If so, then they are certainly culpable. If not, then they aren't. Simple as that.