CE195 – CIVIL ENGINEERING LAWS, CONTRACTS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ETHICS

PINEDA, EUGENE ENRIC G.

2019101743/CE-3
CE195-2_B3
10-22-21

CASE STUDY NO. 03

1. Charged with installing computer chips that resulted in emitting excessive amounts of carbon
dioxide from their Cadillacs, General Motors (GM) agreed in December 1995 to recall nearly
500,000 late-model Cadillacs and pay nearly $45 million in fines and recall costs. Lawyers for
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Justice Department contended that GM
knew that the design change would result in pollution problems. Rejecting this claim, GM
released a statement saying that the case was ‘‘a matter of interpretation’’ of complex
regulations, but that it had ‘‘worked extremely hard to resolve the matter and avoid litigation.’’

According to EPA and Justice Department officials, the $11 million civil penalty was the third
largest penalty in a pollution case, the second largest such penalty under the Clean Air Act, and
the largest involving motor vehicle pollution. This was also the first case of a court ordering an
automobile recall to reduce pollution rather than to improve safety or dependability.

Government officials said that in 1990 a new computer chip was designed for the engine controls
of Cadillac Seville and Deville models. This was in response to car owners’ complaints that these
cars tended to stall when the climate control system was running. The chips injected additional
fuel into the engine whenever this system was running. But this resulted in tailpipe emissions of
carbon dioxide well in excess of the regulations. Although the cars are usually driven with the
climate control system running, tests used for certifying the meeting of emission standards were
conducted when the system was not running. This was standard practice for emission tests
throughout the automotive industry.

However, EPA officials argued that under the Clean Air Act, GM should have informed them
that the Cadillac’s design was changed in a way that would result in violating pollution standards
under normal driving conditions. In 1970, the officials said, automobile manufacturers were
directed not to get around testing rules by designing cars that technically pass the tests but that
nevertheless cause avoidable pollution. GM’s competitors, the officials contended, complied
with that directive.

A GM spokesperson said that testing emissions with the climate control running was not required
because ‘‘it was not in the rules, not in the regulations; it’s not in the Clean Air Act.’’ However,
claiming that GM discovered the problem in 1991, Justice Department environmental lawyer
Thomas P. Carroll objected to GM’s continued inclusion of the chip in the 1992–1995 models:
‘‘They should have gone back and reengineered it to improve the emissions.’’ In agreeing to
recall the vehicles, GM said it now had a way of controlling the stalling problem without
 increasing pollution. This involves ‘‘new fueling calibrations,’’ GM said, and it ‘‘should have no
adverse effect on the drivability of the vehicles involved.’’

What responsibilities did GM engineers have in regard to either causing or resolving the
problems with the Cadillac Seville and Deville models?

The spokesperson of the General Motors said that they didn’t do the testing of car
emissions involving the climate control because it is not stated under the Clean Air Act. The
General Motors are also aware that there is a problem on there Cadillac’s design having a
computer chip that emits excessive amount of carbon dioxide during their 1991 research results.
However, the Cadillac Seville and Deville model designs released during the 1992-1995 still
have the dangerous chips in their Cadillac’s computer box instead of finding a solution or
alternative engineering to improve the Cadillac’s emission without compromising the
environment and health of people.

Having the knowledge about the dangerous computer chip of their design, the engineers
and management of the General Motors are responsible for the damages that are done with the
environment. They didn’t do anything to resolve the problem and instead of creating solutions,
they still released it in the market for the following years. The management of GM reflected a
dishonest move in the form of withholding information. It is very unethical to hide the bad
aspects of your product and only advertise its good side for the sake of money. Their clients
would never know the bad impacts of the car to themselves and to the environment.

The fulltime responsibility of the engineers is the safety of people and the environment.
Even if it is not stated on the law or under the contract, putting the lives of people and the
environment under risk and hazard establishes a responsibility and liability of the affected entity.
After their finding about the dangers brought by their computer chip, they should’ve
reengineered the design of their Cadillac before releasing it to the next year market.

2. According to John Markoff’s ‘‘Odyssey of a Hacker: From Outlaw to Consultant,’’ John T.

Draper is attempting to become a ‘‘white-hat’’ hacker as a way of repaying society for previous
wrongdoing.82 In the early 1970s, Draper became known as ‘‘Cap’n Crunch’’ after discovering
how to use a toy whistle in the Cap’n Crunch cereal box to access the telephone network in order
to get free telephone calls. While serving time in jail for his misdeeds, he came up with the early
design for Easy Writer, IBM’s first word-processing program for its first PC in 1981. However,
says Markoff, in subsequent years Draper used his skills to hack into computer networks, became
a millionaire, lost jobs, and experienced homelessness. Now, however, Draper has been enlisted
to help operate an Internet security software and consulting firm that specializes in protecting the
online property of corporations. Draper says, ‘‘I’m not a bad guy.’’

However, realizing there are bound to be doubters, he adds, ‘‘But I’m being treated like a fox
trying to guard the hen house.’’ SRI International’s computer security expert Peter Neumann
summarizes the concern: Whether black hats can become white hats is not a black-and-white
question. In general, there are quite a few black hats who have gone straight and become very
effective. But the simplistic idea that hiring overtly black-hat folks will increase your security is
clearly a myth.

Discuss the ethical issues this case raises. What might reasonably convince doubters that Draper
has, indeed, reformed? Are customers of the consulting firm entitled to know about Draper’s
history and his role at the firm?

Draper is a man with the knowledge and skill about the current technology during his
time. The ethical issue that developed in Draper’s case was using his skills to trick the people
around him. Evidence is stated in the case problem including the use of toy whistle from Cap’n
Crunch cereal box to have free calls. Afterwards, his talent grew to become able to hack
computer networking. He has the same as the Frank Abagnale Jr. forgery of money where they
are considered as black hat and later on helped the society to fight the criminals on the same
field.
The Draper case of shifting from a villain hacker to computer networking to a protector
of online property corporation is quite a doubtful scenario for everyone. The entities who hire
Drapper are fully aware of his past but still trust him to protect their online properties. Many of
us would ask why? To answer your question, Draper is aware that he cannot continue his
business of hacking due to particular reason including his safety, freedom, and life. Instead of
 making money from hacking, he made his move to gather money by the means of protecting his
client’s online properties. They companies are fully aware of his talent that is why they risked an
entrusted him the responsibility of protecting their online networking. In fact, he dedicated in
creating IBM’s first word-processing program for its first PC, which means that he can earn the
same amount of money in a legal way without compromising his safety and freedom.

REFERENCES:
JOMAR S. RAMOS CE 195-2: PROFESSIONALISM AND CODE OF ETHICS PPT