...But my objection is that there seems to be many other ways that this problem could be solved...For example, perhaps the certification process should be slightly more rigorous than "self certification"? Obviously, testing is cumbersome if the EPA can only test "10 to 15 percent" of new cars...on the other hand, it sounds like WVU engineers were able to discover it accidentally without touching the software...which is how a lot of effective engineering testing manages to be done despite black box systems.
Yeah, making software transparent is almost always a good thing...but if the test has the kind of predictable characteristics such that programmers can seemingly hard code the parameters...Is it really easier to move an entire industry to the open source paradigm than to design a more robust test?
And not to throw too much pity on the regulators...but they were dealing with an exceptionally committed adversary. It's horrible how GM's culture allowed the ignition switch defect [1] to go unrecalled until a dozen people died in such senseless ways...but the ignition switch defect was a result of well-intended, if ultimately incorrect tradeoffs in the engineering process. And the deaths were far enough apart, and their cause not certain enough, for good-hearted engineers to have a "well, someone above my pay grade is dealing with this" mentality.
But VW's situation...it's hard to imagine how the bad code came about without active intent by everyone who touched and tested that code. It's one thing for a huge company to have the kind of bureaucratic stagnancy that leads to tragic inaction...it's something else for them to commit to breaking the law in such an obvious way.
[1] http://www.npr.org/2014/03/31/297312252/the-long-road-to-gms...
edit: It really just seems the OP is throwing a bunch of assertions together, with software being the most mysterious and therefore the most obvious scapegoat. The advocate/technologist most prominently featured doesn't make cogent arguments (though maybe he was misquoted?).
The following quote from Mr. Moglen is so nonsensical that it could only make sense to people whose understanding of computers seems very limited:
> “Software is in everything,” he said, citing airplanes, medical devices and cars, much of it proprietary and thus invisible. “We shouldn’t use it for purposes that could conceivably cause harm, like running personal computers, let alone should we use it for things like anti-lock brakes or throttle control in automobiles.”
Huh? If software shouldn't be allowed to run personal computers, because PCs can cause harm...then...huh?