What's the sensationalism? Nissan was producing out-of-spec cars due to falsified data, no?
In reality, Nissan's internal workers were caught falsifying an internal test. That might seem like a small point but it's quite an important difference - the difference between a live malicious data breach and an internal audit failing.
The bigger point is that Nissan would be committing fraud on its customers by quoting false specs for the products they are selling.
Because outspoken HN readers assumed this was something to do with government?
Because it does not provide it's readers with an understanding of what happened, purposefully, to create a more sensationalist headline to generate more clicks and likely more revenue through advertising and subscriptions.
> Because outspoken HN readers assumed this was something to do with government?
First, this is needlessly insulting. Second, it is common knowledge that emissions standards are government regulations (because they are), so titling an article about a car manufacturer about failing emissions standards points _almost everyone_ in the wrong direction.
>First, this is needlessly insulting. Second, it is common knowledge that emissions standards are government regulations (because they are), so titling an article about a car manufacturer about failing emissions standards points _almost everyone_ in the wrong direction.
As insulting as assuming the motivations of an author? I don't think so. Emissions standards are also builder specs. What came first: builder specs, or government specs?
>titling an article about a car manufacturer about failing emissions standards points _almost everyone_ in the wrong direction.
I disagree. The title was factually accurate. The current title is arguably inaccurate now, as I doubt Nissan even used the word 'internal' in their 'admission'.
For example, in DC there is fraud in the first degree and fraud in the second degree, as well as false promise to future performance: https://code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/22-3221.h...
>(a) Fraud in the first degree. — A person commits the offense of fraud in the first degree if that person engages in a scheme or systematic course of conduct with intent to defraud or to obtain property of another by means of a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise and thereby obtains property of another or causes another to lose property.
>(b) Fraud in the second degree. — A person commits the offense of fraud in the second degree if that person engages in a scheme or systematic course of conduct with intent to defraud or to obtain property of another by means of a false or fraudulent pretense, representation, or promise.
>(c) False promise as to future performance. — Fraud may be committed by means of false promise as to future performance which the accused does not intend to perform or knows will not be performed. An intent or knowledge shall not be established by the fact alone that one such promise was not performed.
Boring, I know.