Japan Times article on document leak by translator

[B. Benjaminson]

Hello all.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/09/business/imperial-familys-car-woes-sparked-toyota-whistleblower/#.UbRiQPlkPW4

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

[Mark Spahn]

- - - - - - - - - - -

 

Betsy B.,

Muchos arigatos for this.  This is very interesting.

 

The article itself...

The incidents of unintended acceleration were suspected to be caused by "an electronic defect".  Was the suspicion really on faulty electronics (a hardware failure), or rather on a bug in the software that controls the car's throttle (a software defect)?  If the latter, all the emperor's horses and all the emperor's men should have been able to track the problem down to a line of code that said something like "if A>5" instead of "if A>4", or maybe a line of code that looks at the wrong input.  But this elucidation never happened.

The search for the cause involved both the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).  How in the world did NASA get involved?  Ground-vehicle safety lies completely outside the remit of NASA, whose responsibility is

to publicize catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)

http://climate.nasa.gov/ 

and to reassure Muslims about the historical glories of Islamic science

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html .

 

Secrecy...

Settlement agreements between Toyota and car owners who have suffered loss "keep all discovered technical facts secret".  Why?  Cui bono?  Technical facts concerning the cause of accidents are exactly what should be made public, so that other carmakers can avoid them.

 

Another area of secrecy involves translation. 

Betsy, was any Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) involved here?  Between which parties?  And what specifically does the NDA say?  It would be interesting to have your views on this.

-- Mark Spahn  (West Seneca, NY)

 

[B. Benjaminson]

Mark,

I'm glad you appreciated my post and the article, but I am not sure your questions are on topic for Honyaku. There may also be legal issues.

I posted with the intention of discussing best practices when translators encounter ethical dilemmas in the course of work--if anyone is interested, that is.

Perhaps I'll answer you privately and then let's see what the moderator(s) have to say about posting to the list.

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[David J. Littleboy]

>From: B. Benjaminson

Yow! If you hadn't snarked at Mark, I wouldn't have read the article. Yow!
You are one brave bloke. My hat's off.

I've been lucky. The one ugliness I got involved with was (interpreting for)
an illegal sale of a not-yet-issued stock to a (US) business negotiating
partner, complete with Cayman Islands financing. I was feeling really
nervous about being involved in major criminal activity, when the US
principle pulled me aside and asked if all Japanese were so unscrupulous. I
explained that there was currently a rush of this sort of thing going on,
and that, yes, there really was a lack of awareness that this was seriously
criminal. But the point was that I wasn't going to be left the sole
independent fly-on-the-wall with the moral responsibility to report the
crime. (In actual fact, they did make a point of only calling in the
interpreter to explain; I was not to ever know if the deal had actually
happened.)

Which is to say, I got off easy; you didn't.

The actual business deal went through, the US chain store opened a few
stores in Tokyo, and I actually bought things at said chain store a few
times, although the only instance of said chain store that's within my
nawabari.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

[David J. Littleboy]

>From: David J. Littleboy

>
>The actual business deal went through, the US chain store opened a few
>stores in Tokyo, and I actually bought things at said chain store a few
>times, although the only instance of said chain store that's within my
>nawabari.

Oops. I left out the "folded", which should have been the last word in the
above.

[B. Benjaminson]

David,

Honestly, I wasn't being snarky. I am just very sensitive that many people don't want to risk talking to me for fear of some legal contagion...and that does exist. Like, for example, anyone who ever sent me an email gets subpoenaed for all their related emails...etc. This can be expensive and annoying. It has happened, not to any of my contacts so far, but to others who spoke to media about Toyota's failings. And gas pedals, runaway cars, etc. is not really on topic for Honyaku, actually.

Re your " brave bloke" comment. Thanks! I forgot that part already. I went through it around 2 years ago. Then it passed. Now I know that if Toyota's lawyers ever come calling with any lawsuit, I will make their complaint papers public in a jiffy and it will backfire on them. So they probably won't show up at my door. But we will see. I'm prepared for anything.

Really, more than lawsuits and such, I am scared of someone dying while these documents are sitting here not having enough of an impact. This keeps me awake at night. Actually, some people seem to have died in runaway cars on my watch, and it bothers me very much, even though I am not directly to blame. I wish the legal and regulatory systems could respond more quickly and thoroughly to public risk.

As for translators' ethics-- seems that most discovery or other lawsuit-related projects involve disputes over money. I've never felt a burning need to disclose financial mischief. This project was different--people could live or die. Did anyone else here ever encounter such an ethical challenge? What did you do?

If we work for law firms, lawyers think we have the same duty of confidentiality that they do, but I am not so sure. Anyway, I have no law license to lose. 

I wish there were a mechanism for translators to blow the whistle on their clients without losing their jobs pronto. Seems impossible.

Anyway, these are a few random thoughts. Any comments?

Betsy Benjaminson

(Sderot, Israel)

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Mark Spahn]

Betsy Benjaminson writes:

David,

Honestly, I wasn't being snarky. I am just very sensitive that many people don't want to risk talking to me for fear of some legal contagion...and that does exist.

- - - - - - -

I didn't notice any snark either, or even a boojum.

http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/carrol03.html

http://www.theotherpages.org/poems/carrol04.html

 

She further writes:

Anyway, these are a few random thoughts. Any comments?

- - - - - - -

Random thought: 

Blaming the interpreter who interprets at a crime-planning

meeting between the Albanian mafia and the Chechen mafia

is like blaming the knife manufacturer for a stabbing.

[timl...@aol.com]

Absolutely agree with David about your amazing stance Betsy. One thing
that always puzzles me is why people don't turn off the ignition when
this happens. Does anyone know why this would not work? OT, sorry, but
v. puzzled.

Tim Leeney

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups
"Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email

to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Brian Chandler]

timlee...@aol.com wrote:
> Absolutely agree with David about your amazing stance Betsy. One thing
> that always puzzles me is why people don't turn off the ignition when
> this happens. Does anyone know why this would not work? OT, sorry, but
> v. puzzled.

Basically, I think, because in a modern car you have no direct control
of anything. It's like having Windoze interposed between your brain
and your life. Almost certainly some interlock dreamt up by a cubicle
drone (nearly wrote "cubical drone" there!) will prevent you from
stopping the engine. And you have no way of disconnecting the engine
from the wheels (it was called a 'clutch'). And if you should be
unfortunate enough to find yourself in a lake you have no way of
opening the windows. Ho hum.

Bravo for Betsy. I suppose the "legal warnings" mentioned in the
article made it clear that the law is not here to help people do the
right thing.

Brian Chandler

[B. Benjaminson]

Tim,

The commonly taught emergency response to a runaway is to jam on the brake and put the car into neutral. Turning off the ignition will disable power steering and power brakes. You need to be able to steer and brake.

There have been many reported instances where nothing works--drivers do try anything. I think the engine computer is just frozen. News stories about a number of these incidents are noted on my Facebook page. At least once, two people jumped out of a car (they were young and were unhurt). Some guy in Saudi Arabia drove his car into a sand dune to stop it. 

The tragic Saylor case was some proof that even a professional driver cannot find anything that works.

Also, the majority of sudden acceleration events are at low speed in parking lots or at intersections. Typically, the car lurches ahead and the driver has no time to do anything about it before the car hits something.

Betsy

to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[B. Benjaminson]

Legal warnings. Yes, there is not much help for whistleblowers in actual reality. Congress keeps trying to protect whistleblowers, and I am grateful to have been very tenderly and respectfully handled by Senator Grassley's staff, where they take in whistleblowers, but the harsh reality is that whether the target is a government agency or a corporation, the target organization's response is usually ruthless and the whistleblower loses their career or worse.

Any random lawyer who has the temerity to converse with me--and some lawyers out there are ethically obligated to slam down the phone if they hear who I am, and they do -- ouch!

--will basically say I should not do this. They have to.

I am grateful to my local lawyer here in Israel, who issued such stern warnings as he is obligated to do, and then smiled when I ignored him.

Car electronics are impossibly complex. The problem with the cubicle drones designing cars is that many are now working for outside engineering companies that supply the vehicle control systems to automakers. These contractors are using different development tools that do not always mesh. Likewise, the company internal departments letting out contracts for all this engineering work are each in their own silo, and horizontal communication can be difficult, as all we Japanophiles can readily appreciate. They work at it, but imperfectly I think. When problems arise the communication may suffer greatly.  Then there are language difficulties between Japanese engineers and their overseas suppliers, etc. Toyota execs admitted much of this in the documents I have, and the rest can be easily understood from the auto engineering trade press.

Congress is now working at improving the regulators' appreciation of their tough job keeping on top of all this technology to ensure consumer safety. The industry runs circles around the regulators partly because of low budget for regulation and partly because of the revolving door between the regulators and the regulated.

When I started this truth-telling project I thought it would be a matter of just handing a wad of docs to some reporter and the job is done. Not so. It will probably take a great deal of the rest of my working life to have any impact at all. In some ways, it is a curse mixed with a golden opportunity to make a difference.

Betsy

 

[B. Benjaminson]

Yikes, this has gone way OT. Sorry!

Betsy

[Mika J.]

Betsy,

Your posts are appreciated.
Language (cultural) barrier can be a convenient mask, a handy smoke screen.  Becoming complacent behind this mask, if some players indeed acted against our own cultural code set against 甘い汁を吸う exploitations, shame be upon them. 

Improper transfer of wealth at the cost of those unfortunate will be harmful to all of us in the long run, wherever we may reside, so I share your concern and appreciate your courage for taking this huge step of setting things right.  I can't say who is right or wrong as I know so very little, but the causality must be proven by the technical evidence, however impossibly complex it may be. 

I can't say who stands to gain commercially (and politically) by Toyota losing, but we get emotional and excited rooting for our home team.  I pray for the fairness you stand for.

One thing that is relevant here is to note that some behavioral clues (?) might be at risk of getting filtered out differently through a colored cultural lens. 

>“The attitude in these memos between all the engineers working on the Crown Prince’s car seemed very different,” she says. “They brought a lot of people together and talked about the problem very seriously.”  In contrast, much of the company’s energy in the United States seemed to be devoted to directing attention away from and covering up the problems. 

Without casting doubt on your good reasons, could this not be a normal business reaction set against the backdrop of ongoing legal battles, I wonder aloud.  No one should be demonized, and adversarial system is good at doing that. 

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us

[Tom Donahue]

Mark Spahn wrote:

> car's throttle (a software defect)? If the latter, all the emperor's horses
> and all the emperor's men should have been able to track the problem down to
> a line of code that said something like "if A>5" instead of "if A>4", or
> maybe a line of code that looks at the wrong input.

Not necessarily. If there is a bug, and they didn't find it, it's
probably one of those things that manifests itself off and on, only
under certain rare conditions and after the program has been running
for 5 hours. For example, a function call that worked 100,000 times
before suddenly stops working, perhaps because of an unrelated memory
leak that overwrites the return address.
I presume NASA got involved because they have the government's best
debuggers, who are used to dealing with problems like this, and with
best practices for mission-critical systems (like accelerators).

I mention this because of the possibility that there could be a bug,
which the world's best engineers tried in good faith to find, and
didn't find. Doesn't mean it isn't there, or conversely that it was
found and covered up, or that they didn't try.
That would all play a role if I was thinking of becoming a whistle blower.

> Administration (NASA). How in the world did NASA get involved?
> Ground-vehicle safety lies completely outside the remit of NASA, whose
> responsibility is
> to publicize catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)

Do I detect a bit of snark here? I think I do.
The problem here is sort of the opposite. What we have here isn't a
failure to understand. Or NASA's failure to explain what we
understand. It's a failure to do anything about it. To understand
that, we have to ask social scientists and politicians, not NASA.

Sorry if I seem a bit grumpy lately. I'm not in the mood to tolerate
snark about global warming. If somebody wants to throw me off the
list, go ahead.

--
Tom Donahue

[Herman]

On 6/9/2013 09:11, B. Benjaminson wrote:

> Really, more than lawsuits and such, I am scared of someone dying while
> these documents are sitting here not having enough of an impact. This
> keeps me awake at night. Actually, some people seem to have died in
> runaway cars on my watch, and it bothers me very much, even though I am
> not directly to blame. I wish the legal and regulatory systems could
> respond more quickly and thoroughly to public risk.
>
> As for translators' ethics-- seems that most discovery or other
> lawsuit-related projects involve disputes over money. I've never felt a
> burning need to disclose financial mischief. This project was
> different--people could live or die. Did anyone else here ever encounter
> such an ethical challenge? What did you do?
> If we work for law firms, lawyers think we have the same duty of
> confidentiality that they do, but I am not so sure. Anyway, I have no
> law license to lose.
> I wish there were a mechanism for translators to blow the whistle on
> their clients without losing their jobs pronto. Seems impossible.
>

In the case of a lawyer, the duty of confidentiality does not apply in
cases where the lawyer has knowledge of a client's intent to commit a
crime. This can be understood as an instance of the general principle
that the law does not protect illegal activity. Beyond that, it would be
a violation of professional ethics to disclose information which one has
agreed to keep confidential. There may arise specific situations where
one would choose to act unethically in one respect with the intent to
act ethically in some other respect, e.g. violating a nondisclosure
agreement in order to promote what one deems to be a greater good. That
would be by nature a matter of personal judgment - there cannot be any
comprehensive rule, principle or system to regulate situations where
rules fail or where principles conflict.

I think it is axiomatic that, given enough knowledge, there is always
some whistle to be blown on the basis of almost any translation
assignment. On the other hand, one of the ethical foundations of the
translation industry is that translators can generally be trusted to
translate confidential documents because translators will generally not
disclose confidential information. Thus, a mechanism which facilitates
whistle blowing would be inherently problematic.

Herman Kahn

[Jens Wilkinson]

On 2013/06/10, at 1:41, "Mark Spahn" <mark...@verizon.net> wrote:

- - -

Random thought: 

Blaming the interpreter who interprets at a crime-planning

meeting between the Albanian mafia and the Chechen mafia

is like blaming the knife manufacturer for a stabbing.

-- Mark Spahn  (West Seneca, NY)

Are you seriously arguing that if you interpret at a meeting where a crime is being planned, you bear no responsibility (moral or legal) for the consequences? This seems to me a disturbingly amoral position. 

If you were asked to interpret for a person directing an assassin to shoot a certain person on a stage, would you actually do it?

Jens Wilkinson

[Mark Spahn]

A few more random thoughts...

* For me anyway, the technical aspects of pinpointing and fixing software
bugs in a complex system is the most interesting part of this topic -- and
unfortunately the most answer-sparse. Is there a theory of how to put
together a complex system with many interrelating parts in such a way that
it will be "robust", i.e., won't fail unless N parts fail simultaneously?
And is there a special theory of debugging complex systems for finding the
cause of intermittent, irreproducible failures? If so, what are these
theories called (so we can look up what is known about this field of
knowledge)?

* How did the space agency NASA get involved? Let's consider the
motivations of the participants. From the commissioning party's viewpoint,
it is to make use of the still undissipated reputation of NASA as competent,
and from a NASA administrator's viewpoint, it is to spread NASA's tentacles
into wider fields to ensure its survival as its main mission of space
exploration goes away.

* Among all the people in the knowledge chain who are privy to secret
information, a freelance translator is the least vulnerable. Others can
lose their livelihood (public office, job, law license), but a translator
loses only one client, and might be able, through publicity, to prevent
being hit by stiffer penalties.

* Seeking the moral advice of a disinterested third party, as was done here,
is wise. Such an advice-giver, if knowledgeable, might be able to see
consequences that the would-be whistleblower might not.

[Tom Donahue]

Mark Spahn wrote:

> * For me anyway, the technical aspects of pinpointing and fixing software
> bugs in a complex system is the most interesting part of this topic -- and
> unfortunately the most answer-sparse.

Probably because this is all Toyota's highly proprietary information.
The crown jewels, as it were.

> And is there a special theory of debugging complex systems for finding the
> cause of intermittent, irreproducible failures? If so, what are these
> theories called (so we can look up what is known about this field of
> knowledge)?

Of course, it's a whole field. You could look up "debugging complex
systems" in Google Scholar.

> Let's consider the motivations of the participants.

Let's not. Speculating about motives is the absolute worst way to
deal with any problem. Normally it reveals nothing except the
biases of the speculator.

--
Tom Donahue

[Mark Spahn]

Random thought: 

Blaming the interpreter who interprets at a crime-planning

meeting between the Albanian mafia and the Chechen mafia

is like blaming the knife manufacturer for a stabbing.

-- Mark Spahn  (West Seneca, NY)

- - - - - - - -

Are you seriously arguing that if you interpret at a meeting where a crime is being planned, you bear no responsibility (moral or legal) for the consequences? This seems to me a disturbingly amoral position. 

If you were asked to interpret for a person directing an assassin to shoot a certain person on a stage, would you actually do it?

Jens Wilkinson

- - - - - - - -

You raise an interesting topic:  the blameworthiness of tools, including sentient translation-tools.  A human translator could be culpable for not revealing the existence of a crime ("misprision of a felony"), but not because he is a translator. 

But let's step back one level.  Imagine that the Albanian and Chechen gangsters are conversing via Google Translation.  Are the developers of the translation software culpable, like the manufacturer of a Saturday Night Special handgun is arguable culpable for gunshot carnage?

Or imagine an online system for real-time translation (does one already exist?) in which live human translators and customers interact anonymously.

Culpability can be bypassed by deception: e.g., telling the translators that these assassination orders are not real, but part of an interactive shoot-'em-up game.  Another, more far-fetched example:  "Mr. Booth, you can feel free to shoot that man in the presidential box at Ford's Theater, because that's not really Abraham Lincoln but a time-traveling amusement-park animatronics robot from 1985."

[Jens Wilkinson]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Mark Spahn <mark...@verizon.net> wrote:

But let's step back one level.  Imagine that the Albanian and Chechen gangsters are conversing via Google Translation.  Are the developers of the translation software culpable, like the manufacturer of a Saturday Night Special handgun is arguable culpable for gunshot carnage?

I wasn't asking about the guiltiness of an automatic translation tool. I was asking what you personally would do in a situation where you are asked to interpret or translate something that you seem reasonably certain will be used for a crime.

--
Jens Wilkinson

[Mark Spahn]

-- Jens Wilkinson

- - - - - - - -

I too was not talking about the guiltiness of a non-sentient translation tool, but rather of those (humans, or androids) who invented it knowing it could be used for immoral ends.  You will notice that I did not give an answer, nor did I give an answer to the "What would you do personally?" question. 

This is analogous to a Major League outfielder running across the field with outstretched arm to make a spectacular one-handed catch of a fly ball, or to ignominiously fail to catch it, thereby losing the pennant-clinching game.  Such a dramatic situation is evidence of bad outfielding:  the outfielder should have positioned himself correctly beforehand, so as to keep such show-off spectacles from even occurring.

Fate might thrust you into the moral Big Leagues, but I (probably like Betsy) find it more congenial to lead a hobbitlike existence that bypasses upsetting decision-points.  (But maybe I'll change my mind if the situation arises.)

[Herman]

On 6/9/2013 15:42, Jens Wilkinson wrote:
>
>
> On 2013/06/10, at 1:41, "Mark Spahn" <mark...@verizon.net

As a translator or interpreter, one does not generally bear
responsibility for verifying the correctness or fitness for a specific
purpose of the content of the document or statement being translated, or
for the negative consequences of the use of the translated document, or
for the actions of one's customers in general.

What one does bear responsibility for is the translation itself. Thus,
if something bad occurs as a result of incorrect translation or other
mishandling of the translation task, then the translator is
substantially responsible, apart from whatever legal liability may or
may not ensue.

There is the common if not universal notion that if one has knowledge of
some impending bad thing, and the ability to prevent it from happening,
then one may have a responsibility to do so, but this is not a
responsibility that arises in one's capacity as a translator, and is a
complex matter beyond the scope of this mailing list.

However, as a translator, one may have the responsibility to mitigate
the negative consequences of one's translation activity, i.e. in
deciding how to translate something, one may consider not just the
meaning of the source text, but also real-world consequences of
translating it one way vs another. Thus, for example, if the source text
is very rude and harsh and one suspects it could spur the customer to
violence, one may consider rephrasing the translation using more polite
and mild language. The question is, to what extent is one justified in
altering a translation for purposes other than the core translation task
of communicating the meaning of a source text in the target language?
Or, to put it another way, to what extent is fidelity to the source text
an ethical imperative in translation activity?

Herman Kahn

[Jens Wilkinson]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Herman <sl...@lmi.net> wrote:

As a translator or interpreter, one does not generally bear responsibility for verifying the correctness or fitness for a specific purpose of the content of the document or statement being translated, or for the negative consequences of the use of the translated document, or for the actions of one's customers in general.

Thanks for the response. I was hoping that Mark would address that issue, because I think it is one issue brought up in this thread that actually has importance for us as translators. I can't be absolutely sure about this, but my suspicion would be that if a criminal organization hired me to interpret or translate documents related to the conduct of a crime, and that I was aware that I was translating something that would be used for a crime (say, a guide on how to break into a certain bank vault, with a map of the route or something like that), that I could be charged as an accessory to the crime. But I don't know if that is true. Your statement seems to contradict that.

If I am contacted by a person who says they want to launder money, and wishes me to interpret between the person in another country who is going to receive the money, I would be concerned that I might be charged for participating in the crime. I think that accountants can face charges in similar situations, so what about translators? It's true that you are not expected to be an expert, so could claim you didn't know that laundering was illegal, but I wonder, in a case where it would be clear to a reasonable person that the activity is criminal?

--
Jens Wilkinson

[B. Benjaminson]

Mika-san

There are many examples I could give with hard facts, not just impressions I got about the attitudes within the company. There are many company internal engineer admissions of actual technical problems but these were not publicly disclosed.

On the one hand, I found a statement like this in a discussion among engineers in Japan. This email was among the six emails among engineers that touch on the Crown Prince's car situation. (The Japan Times reporter did not write everything he found in these docs...)

アクセルセンサー絡みの市場不具合が多くなっている件で
　　　　１８日（木）に関係者が召集されて確認しましたが、下記に示す様に
　　　　電技部の説明により限りなく電技部部品(ＥＣＵコネクタ、
　　　　アクセルセンサー＆ＳＷ関係）の問題だと結論されました。

In contrast, I found this statement by the chief PR guy dealing with the recalls crisis in the US in an email to his boss in Japan:

ネガティブ論調の発信源は、せいぜい１０人程度です。
これを抑えてば、何とかなると思います。
おっしゃる通り、個別撃破のつもりでいきましょう。
（やるやらないは別として）

I understand that it would be normal for any company to do its best with PR in the face of huge impending legal liabilities. However, suppressing opponents in the media creates an information vacuum for consumers who may then choose to buy a dangerous vehicle. 

As far fetched as it may seem, I think my act of attempting to expose all the known causes of SUA has potential benefit to Toyota and Japan because it may cause Toyota to truly focus on quality and not just quantity and share price. Toyota can then become fundamentally more sustainable and in that way can continue to help sustain Japan's economy for the long term. That is not losing, that is winning.

Betsy

 

[Chris Poole]

I look forward to seeing Mark and Herman up on stage next June eh Jens?

Chris Poole

 

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jens Wilkinson
Sent: Monday, 10 June 2013 11:46 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Japan Times article on document leak by translator

 

 

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Herman <sl...@lmi.net> wrote:

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[B. Benjaminson]

Gentlemen,

Software engineering giants all say that you cannot possibly find and fix all software bugs. The solution to this problem is robust redundancy in all systems. Third party functional safety certification is also essential.

Is it not an unreasonable risk for consumers to bet their lives on secret and non-redundant software? 

Full implementation of standards can help, but that's quite a way off. The IEC functional safety standard called IEC 61508 was published at least ten years ago and then slowly adapted for the auto industry in a standard called ISO 26262, published late in 2012. The adaptation took a very long time while the auto industry apparently dragged its feet because once such a standard is published and compliance becomes the state of the art, automakers are apparently legally liable for anything that does not comply. This industry lag is exactly the time period during which dangerous problems like SUA started appearing.

This brought me to wonder about the boundary of criminal negligence.

Betsy

[Herman]

On 6/9/2013 18:45, Jens Wilkinson wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Herman <sl...@lmi.net
> <mailto:sl...@lmi.net>> wrote:
>
>
>
> As a translator or interpreter, one does not generally bear
> responsibility for verifying the correctness or fitness for a
> specific purpose of the content of the document or statement being
> translated, or for the negative consequences of the use of the
> translated document, or for the actions of one's customers in general.
>
>
> Thanks for the response. I was hoping that Mark would address that
> issue, because I think it is one issue brought up in this thread that
> actually has importance for us as translators. I can't be absolutely
> sure about this, but my suspicion would be that if a criminal
> organization hired me to interpret or translate documents related to the
> conduct of a crime, and that I was aware that I was translating
> something that would be used for a crime (say, a guide on how to break
> into a certain bank vault, with a map of the route or something like
> that), that I could be charged as an accessory to the crime. But I don't
> know if that is true. Your statement seems to contradict that.

In such a case, you could be charged with "aiding and abetting", or
similar. The same holds for any action that aids in the commission of a
crime, when carried out knowingly.

It is even possible that a translator will be found guilty without
having knowingly involved oneself in the commission of a crime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/07/nyregion/07translator.html?ex=1281067200&en=3c365a74aaffb3c2&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0

So as far as criminal liability goes, any sort of involvement with a
criminal or a suspect exposes one to risk.

I think the same is true for civil liability, albeit to a much lesser
extent.

What I intended to say in the previous message is that, in terms of
ethical stance, by the mere act of undertaking to translate a text, a
translator does not automatically also undertake to verify its
authenticity, veracity or suitability for some purpose, or to make sure
the customer will not do anything bad with the translation. Which is not
to say that one should not quietly do so to some extent, for the
practical purpose of avoiding entanglement in criminal or civil
litigation if nothing else. However, undertaking to vet the content of
the source text, the background of the client, etc., in this way would
have the potentially undesirable effect of increasing one's liability,
because then you are more explicitly making yourself responsible for all
those things.

If I at all suspected that a document was to be used for fraudulent or
criminal purposes, I would decline the job by giving an excuse such as
"I am really booked right now" (or whatever else would not arouse the
client's suspicion that I am on to him), and then decide what if
anything I should do about the matter.

I would also avoid translating texts of a patently false or misleading
nature, even in the absence of legal concerns.

However, I don't think that such avoidance implies the application of
some sort of moral filter to the translation process.

Herman Kahn

[Chris Poole]

Dear Betsy,

Thank you very much for alerting us to this article and sharing your further comments.

The subsequent discussion has been extremely useful as well. Not off topic in the slightest.

 

Chris

 

 

 

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of B. Benjaminson
Sent: Sunday, 9 June 2013 9:19 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Japan Times article on document leak by translator

 

Hello all.

 

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/09/business/imperial-familys-car-woes-sparked-toyota-whistleblower/#.UbRiQPlkPW4

 

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

--

[B. Benjaminson]

Herman,

You seem to know the ethics rules and legal obligations of translators. Where did you get these?

As a practical matter, one cannot necessarily grasp the full content or intent of the documents or interpreting job at the outset when it is offered. In my case, I fully understood the end client's intent to continue its misconduct only after editing some hundreds of translated documents, and by that point, as more were pouring in every day, I asked my rabbi what to do with them. 

He said that disclosure is acceptable if it for the purpose of preventing future harm. "Harm," in a Jewish context, does not distinguish criminal or civil, and that is a blessing. Not being an attorney, I am not sure where civil leaves off and criminal picks up. I think much shady corporate conduct is undertaken in the space between civil and criminal conduct. Anyway, in my Jewish context, I could define "harm" as I chose. (Lawyers don't have this freedom, though.)

Having read the harrowing stories of drivers and victims, I then chose to define harm from a consumer's perspective in a very concrete way. Setting aside the most horrible deaths and injuries, even a milder case of an unreliable car that has an electronic mind of its own from time to time can create a huge financial, ethical, and emotional mess for any family living from paycheck to paycheck, for example. They cannot get their Toyota dealer to admit anything is wrong with it. So what should they do with that car? They cannot sell it and put someone else at risk. They don't want to put their own kids in it. They cannot afford to sit it in the driveway and buy another car. My concern encompasses their disempowerment and suffering.

I think it is best for translators to consider the practical effects of their staying quiet or speaking out. Perhaps there is place for speaking up to clients, not just to media and government as I have done, in ethically questionable cases. Could the translation industry formulate whistleblowing best practices guidelines? Could translation agencies offer whistleblower hotlines? Could direct corporate clients open their existing whistleblower hotlines to outside vendors such as ourselves?

Betsy

Betsy

[Mark Spahn]

Chris Poole writes:

I look forward to seeing Mark and Herman up on stage next June eh Jens?

- - - - - - - - -

Uh, am I the only one who doesn't get the witticism?

What stage?  What is happening in June 2014?

Herman and I will need some time to prepare our song-and-dance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qz35vj4NFAE

The Arab Spring version (who's the mannequin?):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1o9Hg8sORs

[Jens Wilkinson]

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Herman <sl...@lmi.net> wrote:

If I at all suspected that a document was to be used for fraudulent or criminal purposes, I would decline the job by giving an excuse such as "I am really booked right now" (or whatever else would not arouse the client's suspicion that I am on to him), and then decide what if anything I should do about the matter.

I would also avoid translating texts of a patently false or misleading nature, even in the absence of legal concerns.

Very nicely stated, and if you will be in Tokyo next summer I would suggest you consider volunteering to be one of the contestants in Chris Poole's game show on ethical dilemmas in translation (assuming that we are fortunate enough that he'll do it again next year) at IJET-25.

For Mark, this may go some way to resolving the witticism that was really an inside joke. I was one of the contestants this year. So I'm now a sanctified expert on the subtleties of ethics in translation. :)

--
Jens Wilkinson

[yukof]

I worked as a document reviewer on the Toyota case for a time, and am now translating for a law firm for a different case. I found the Japan Times article and the discussions that followed very interesting. Thanks for posting, Betsy! 

[B. Benjaminson]

Mark,

Whether they acted in good faith or not, the NASA engineers' hands were tied. They got a very tiny fraction of Toyota's source code to analyze, no failed vehicles, no complaint / warranty data, 1 failed part (that by accident), no engineering drawings, 2 or 3 related documents (out of the tens of thousands turned over to Congress and NHTSA), hardly any time to work, and dismissals of their concerns when they thought they found something. One NASA engineer told me the study was "embarrassing" and "unsound." Also, the independent engineers who voluntarily contributed technical theories of SUA causes were all dismissed, some with ludicrous reasoning. The concerns of peer reviewers were also dismissed. The NASA engineers did manage to write in the study report that "absence of proof is not proof of absence," but that was completely overlooked in the public announcement of the findings. 

I have a copy of a letter written by NHTSA to an independent avionics safety engineer who could not believe what he had read in this NASA report--he was totally appalled--NHTSA told him that NASA was not asked to do a safety analysis of Toyota vehicle electronics.

NHTSA is also dissing me as we speak, and we will see what happens next. The plot thickens. It is by no means finished with this JT article.

Betsy

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:15 AM, Tom Donahue <arri...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mark Spahn wrote:

I mention this because of the possibility that there could be a bug,
which the world's best engineers tried in good faith to find, and
didn't find. Doesn't mean it isn't there, or conversely that it was
found and covered up, or that they didn't try.
That would all play a role if I was thinking of becoming a whistle blower.

> Administration (NASA).  How in the world did NASA get involved?
> Ground-vehicle safety lies completely outside the remit of NASA, whose
> responsibility is
> to publicize catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW)

Do I detect a bit of snark here? I think I do.
The problem here is sort of the opposite. What we have here isn't a
failure to understand. Or NASA's failure to explain what we
understand. It's a failure to do anything about it. To understand
that, we have to ask social scientists and politicians, not NASA.

Sorry if I seem a bit grumpy lately. I'm not in the mood to tolerate
snark about global warming. If somebody wants to throw me off the
list, go ahead.

--
Tom Donahue

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[B. Benjaminson]

"Very interesting" is a wonderful thing to hear, Fukami-san. Thank you for that.

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 7:18 AM, yukof <fukam...@gmail.com> wrote:

I worked as a document reviewer on the Toyota case for a time, and am now translating for a law firm for a different case. I found the Japan Times article and the discussions that followed very interesting. Thanks for posting, Betsy! 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Ben B]

This is probably the most interesting discussion I have ever read on this list, particularly so given the current NSA scandal in the US. Thank you, Betsy.

[Chris Poole]

"I was one of the contestants this year."

 

He won!

 

Chris

(Jens you're too modest.)

[Mark Spahn]

Mark,

Whether they acted in good faith or not, the NASA engineers' hands were tied. They got a very tiny fraction of Toyota's source code to analyze, no failed vehicles, no complaint / warranty data, 1 failed part (that by accident), no engineering drawings, 2 or 3 related documents (out of the tens of thousands turned over to Congress and NHTSA), hardly any time to work, and dismissals of their concerns when they thought they found something. One NASA engineer told me the study was "embarrassing" and "unsound." Also, the independent engineers who voluntarily contributed technical theories of SUA causes were all dismissed, some with ludicrous reasoning. The concerns of peer reviewers were also dismissed. The NASA engineers did manage to write in the study report that "absence of proof is not proof of absence," but that was completely overlooked in the public announcement of the findings. 

I have a copy of a letter written by NHTSA to an independent avionics safety engineer who could not believe what he had read in this NASA report--he was totally appalled--NHTSA told him that NASA was not asked to do a safety analysis of Toyota vehicle electronics.

NHTSA is also dissing me as we speak, and we will see what happens next. The plot thickens. It is by no means finished with this JT article.

Betsy

- - - - - - - -

 

Betsy,

This was a clever move by Toyota, or by whoever sicced NASA on the tiny subset of data that Toyota let NASA look at.  Its target is "low-information" consumers who remember, from their childhood, the prestige in which NASA was held.  The idea is to get the public to think, "Well, if even the hotshots at NASA looked into this and found nothing, everything must be okay."  It is an intelligent self-beneficial use of the ignorance of the distracted public, who can be depended upon not to look into the details.

[B. Benjaminson]

Mark,

Bingo. Toyota execs talked to each other--"we need a third party's OK to get us out of this mess." So NHTSA handed them NASA on a silver platter. How clever indeed!

Also, no one except experts can read and understand the study findings. Very few reporters even read the executive summary, which doesn't really need to match the study findings so well--it can be a spin. Most reporters have only enough time for the press release. And that's what the public gets. Toyota knows this very well. They also did a similar thing with an expert advisory panel in Japan.

Betsy

On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Mark Spahn <mark...@verizon.net> wrote:

Mark,

- - - - - - - -

 

Betsy,

This was a clever move by Toyota, or by whoever sicced NASA on the tiny subset of data that Toyota let NASA look at.  Its target is "low-information" consumers who remember, from their childhood, the prestige in which NASA was held.  The idea is to get the public to think, "Well, if even the hotshots at NASA looked into this and found nothing, everything must be okay."  It is an intelligent self-beneficial use of the ignorance of the distracted public, who can be depended upon not to look into the details.

-- Mark Spahn  (West Seneca, NY)

 

--

[Mark Spahn]

... Very few reporters even read the executive summary, which doesn't really need to match the study findings so well--it can be a spin. Most reporters have only enough time for the press release. And that's what the public gets. ....

Betsy

- - - - - - - - -

Maybe someday a reporter will make his reputation by going beyond the press release and Executive Summary of the kind of self-serving reports that organizations produce.  By digging into the many-page report itself, the reporter might find a telling, or at least an interesting, anecdote.

Do any such reporters exist?  Probably not; they are too time-constrained.

Do any such time-abundant bloggers exist?  Probably.

 

We can also imagine countermeasures by the report writers:  Write the report in such MEGO ("my eyes glaze over"), dishwater-dull prose that no interesting detail can be found.

[Chris Poole]

Bring back Richard Feynman I say.

 

This is truly an astonishing story and certainly brings home how serious the decisions of a translator can be. I wish you all the resources necessary to deal with this Betsy.

 

Chris

 

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of B. Benjaminson

Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013 1:04 AM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com

[Mark Spahn]

This is truly an astonishing story and certainly brings home how serious the decisions of a translator can be. I wish you all the resources necessary to deal with this Betsy.

- - - - - - - -

Yes, dealing with this particular Betsy will require a lot of resources.

-- Mark Spahn, Society for the Prevention of Comma Belittlement

 

[Chris Poole]

It fell off. I think that's a comma down there..

Chris

 

From: hon...@googlegroups.com [mailto:hon...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mark Spahn
Sent: Tuesday, 11 June 2013 3:09 PM
To: hon...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Japan Times article on document leak by translator

 

This is truly an astonishing story and certainly brings home how serious the decisions of a translator can be. I wish you all the resources necessary to deal with this Betsy.

--

[Herman]

On 6/9/2013 20:39, B. Benjaminson wrote:
> Herman,
>
> You seem to know the ethics rules and legal obligations of translators.
> Where did you get these?
>
> As a practical matter, one cannot necessarily grasp the full content or
> intent of the documents or interpreting job at the outset when it is
> offered. In my case, I fully understood the end client's intent to
> continue its misconduct only after editing some hundreds of translated
> documents, and by that point, as more were pouring in every day, I asked
> my rabbi what to do with them.
> He said that disclosure is acceptable if it for the purpose of
> preventing future harm. "Harm," in a Jewish context, does not
> distinguish criminal or civil, and that is a blessing. Not being an
> attorney, I am not sure where civil leaves off and criminal picks up. I
> think much shady corporate conduct is undertaken in the space between
> civil and criminal conduct. Anyway, in my Jewish context, I could define
> "harm" as I chose. (Lawyers don't have this freedom, though.)

There is to my knowledge no codified set of rules which translators
generally follow or are obligated to follow. I was merely describing,
based on my observations, some aspects of how translators generally
operate - their stance, attitude,　etc., insofar as it can be gleaned
from the nature of the translation activity itself.

Your position with regard to confidentiality may be summarized as "I
reserve the right to violate confidentiality when I believe that doing
so may prevent future harm (where harm is defined as I chose)".

The distinction between a criminal offense (犯罪) and a civil offense
(tort,　不法行為) is basically the body of law which is violated, and
that conceptually, the former is understood to harm society as a whole
while the latter harms only a specific person. With respect specifically
to the handling of confidential information under attorney-client
privilege, the distinction is not in principle relevant, in that
knowledge of a planned violation of either body of law can provide an
exception to that privilege.

However, practically speaking, some sort of distinction, vaguely
mirroring that of criminal vs civil, may be operative or essential,
which perhaps could be described as the distinction of normal/expected
vs abnormal/unexpected conduct.

In the broadest sense, much of the normal, non-criminal activity of
individuals and corporations harms others. A common example would be
pollution (as made explicit by the Japanese term 公害). Thus, for
example, if I am planning to go on a road trip (and am thereby
definitely planning to cause or at least contribute to the health damage
or death of an unspecified number of people, and possibly also to cause
catastrophic climate change, car accidents and various other harm), and
you have confidential documents of mine that I submitted for translation
and you suspect that disclosure thereof will cause me to cancel the road
trip, would it be appropriate for you to disclose those documents?

I would say that most lawyers, translators and others who handle
confidential information would disagree with the notion that they are
entitled to breach confidentiality simply because their client plans to
drive a car (i.e. to engage in lawful, normal activity which happens to
have certain known, expected harmful consequences). The same would hold
if the client plans to build a car, which will likely be used with
similar harmful consequences.

In the legal context of product liability, which is treated as a form of
"strict liability", the manufacturer is liable regardless of any
wrongdoing on the manufacturer's part (proof of criminal intent or
negligence is not required). Thus, this area of law differs from most
people's intuitive sense of justice in that it punishes both the
(intuitively) guilty and innocent. In light of this, and given the
impossibility of creating an absolutely perfect product, to defend
oneself in a dispute where one is by definition treated as guilty, one
is in effect forced to act as if one was guilty. That is to say, in
light of this legal arrangement or legal fiction which in effect
requires the practical impossibility of ensuring that no damage
involving one's products ever occurs, a truly honest manufacturer, as
its basic stance, would have to admit that its products contain defects
(are capable of causing damage) and that it is liable for any such
damage. Such a manufacturer - or any which was as honest externally as
it is internally - would be quickly bled dry by product liability
litigation. Thus, the normal expected behavior becomes to deny,
obfuscate, stonewall, etc., as much as possible, whenever faced with
product liability issues. In this context, a discrepancy between
internal and external communications (as opposed to thoroughgoing
denial) may actually be more an indication of honesty.

In light of this awareness, it is hard to say how "preventing future
harm" can be an adequate and reasonable criterion for breaching
confidentiality in such situations - as it would be a criterion which
would apply in pretty much all situations.

In fact, based on my reading of your own account, it seems that
"preventing future harm" was more of an excuse or justification rather
than a reason or motivation for breaching confidentiality in your case,
the motivation being rather that you wished to punish Toyota for what
you found to be its morally repugnant behavior of going all out to
ensure the safety of the emperor while cavalierly ignoring the safety of
millions of regular Americans - in a word, "justice".


Herman Kahn

[Mika J.]

So, it's not like having to stop a serial killer on the loose (or a car company setting out to do intentional harm) -- pardon my oversimplification a skosh. 

To translate our 2 samples with as little confirmation bias as possible, I note that the presence of 限りなく, which moderates the tone of the の問題だと結論されました sentence ending, makes this writer's view clear that at that point in time they were still making an educated guess.  This statement tells us that they were concluding that the accelerator sensor was 'most likely' the culprit, which is still neither here nor there without further context or 下記に示す details at this point.  I'm not calling for more disclosure of the confidential material.  I'm just studying the sample as a translator unrelated to the company.
http://Ien.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

アクセルセンサー絡みの市場不具合が多くなっている件で
　　　　１８日（木）に関係者が召集されて確認しましたが、下記に示す様に
　　　　電技部の説明により限りなく電技部部品(ＥＣＵコネクタ、
　　　　アクセルセンサー＆ＳＷ関係）の問題だと結論されました。
　　　　

I note Betsy's fair approach in her inclusion of the last line in parenthesis.  This second statement clearly shows the PR guy's resolve to stay on course and not be overwhelmed by the strong voice of opposition.  I'm not capable of evaluating it from any judicial standpoints, but can say that it's quite dramatic.

ネガティブ論調の発信源は、せいぜい１０人程度です。
これを抑えてば、何とかなると思います。
おっしゃる通り、個別撃破のつもりでいきましょう。
（やるやらないは別として）

Mika Jarmusz 清水美香
        English to Japanese Translator
        http://inJapanese.us

Herman Kahn

[B. Benjaminson]

Herman, 

Are you a lawyer or ethics expert?

Whistleblowers are always subject to public questioning of their motives.That's part of it. Snowdon was given the epithet "narcissist" yesterday, among other things. This serves the interests of people abusing their power. Speculating on my motives will really get you nowhere. In truth, there are many intertwining motives at work here and in any such case. They don't matter. What matters is whether my act can improve public safety. The true impact, if any, will take many years to know. I am facing many more years of unpaid hard work before this job is done.

Legislation is the main tool for preventing future harm to consumers. In the US, the legislative process, unfortunately, operates primarily when media focus a spotlight on current unacceptable public risks. Of course, reporters often lose courage when the target is a big, rich, corporation, but then they refocus on government-industry collusion and get the job done that way. This JT story, and other stories that are shortly to follow in its wake, God willing, have already changed the reaction I am getting from Congress. They have to pay attention or risk negative press themselves, and that is how I gain a tiny foothold of power on behalf of consumers against a giant adversary with an army of lobbyists.

The second tool is deterrence. Corporate officers who understand that they cannot hide potentially lethal product defects behind a wall of lies will be more likely to prevent them or fix them in the future to perform their fiduciary duty to their shareholders, etc.

The Crown Prince car story is fair game for reporting because the six documents that described it were found among many other documents that contain evidence of disregard for US public safety, including lies under oath in Congress and a number of extremely derisive, contemptuous comments about various Americans. I was pretty stunned to find a widespread (although not universal) attitude in Japanese executives (and even some engineers), Japanese stationed in the US, and in a few US employees in Washington too, that Americans can just hand over their money to buy cars and after that, they can just shut up.

I think your logic on products liability is questionable. Toyota has plenty of money to fix dangerously misbehaving cars. I just take this matter more simply than you do.

I suggest you use another metaphor next time you express concern for the fate of manufacturers. "Bled dry" is in fact what has happened to many real people, literally, who were killed by these product defects. Are you not concerned for their actual blood?

In one story I heard about runaway Toyota crash, the dead driver was found with both feet on the brake pedal, and both ankles broken. 

Betsy

Herman Kahn

[B. Benjaminson]

Mika-san,

I don't regard T as having set out to do intentional harm, but instead to make money while disregard warnings and reports of the harmful consequences to consumers (and also to workers and suppliers).

The two snippets I gave you were examples. The full picture can be seen by assembling many dozens of documents with various admissions such as this one. Many are engineer speculation on "most likely" root causes but some give firm conclusions.

Among them is a detailed record of many hundreds of accelerator pedal sensor replacements in many models to fix speed control problems. Documents such as that support confidence that the conclusions tentatively expressed by the engineers here were correct. 

However, the world's top electronics reliability expert (who consults to many giant Asian and Japanese manufacturers) pointed out to me personally that Toyota engineers guessing about the cause of dangerous vehicle behavior is in itself conclusive evidence of their irresponsible safety engineering practices.

As for the second snippet I provided, there is much public and private evidence that the plan to individually destroy opponents in media, expressed by the PR guy, was actually implemented. A lot of media organizations and individual reporters cannot write anything negative; some of the most energetic investigative reporters have been taken off the continuing story by their editors. Toyota's work against its opponents  was also made public by the US House Energy Committee after their investigation of Toyota's plans to intimidate one of their hearing witnesses--a safety advocate who also writes a blog. And this continues today. I had the ear of a very senior auto reporter, who wrote a nice article about Senator Grassley's concerns. At an auto industry event soon afterward, he was literally taken aside and his arm literally twisted by Toyota's senior PR guy, and told "you have been rather negative lately," with the clear message that any further such articles would have consequences for the reporter's career. This reporter subsequently disconnected from me.

Betsy

 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[Jens Wilkinson]

On 2013/06/12, at 13:32, "B. Benjaminson" <benj...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> As for the second snippet I provided, there is much public and private evidence that the plan to individually destroy opponents in media, expressed by the PR guy, was actually implemented.

It sounds very plausible, though I think that trying to eliminate opponents in the media is (as long as you don't literally eliminate them!) is a legitimate pr strategy, though in my opinion not a very wise one. But I don't think it's illegal per se. I think your justification for leaking document would come not from Toyota's quality as a company, or whether they value the emperor more than Americans (they have the right to if they want), but from the simple fact that it could save lives because people weren't aware of how serious the problem was.

Jens Wilkinson

[B. Benjaminson]

Jens,

My basic justification for leaking is the intent to save lives eventually. 

The Crown Prince documents were just one of the many bits of evidence I collected in my mind as I prepared to decide on a disclosure. Yes of course Japanese executives will value the emperor more than the average American, but the magnitude of the discrepancy bothered me, especially when Americans have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Toyota cars, enriching Japan . The snippet I quoted to this list--an admission of a cluster of likely electronic causes of speed control faults--is a glaring, direct contradiction of sworn testimony and public statements by Toyota executives. What could be more illegitimate than a willingness to lie to cover up potentially lethal product defects? 

If Toyota uses its money and influence to eliminate opponents in the media, there is only one side left in the public debate about the safety of its cars. I do not think it in the public interest that free speech is impeded in this way.

I have to take a day off from this discussion to prepare for a major interview tomorrow...so I will try to answer anyone else in a couple of days...

Warm regards,

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

[Jens Wilkinson]

On 2013/06/12, at 20:09, "B. Benjaminson" <benj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> . Yes of course Japanese executives will value the emperor more than the average American, but the magnitude of the discrepancy bothered me, especially when Americans have spent hundreds of billions of dollars on Toyota cars, enriching Japan .

This is a little late, but I think you should be very careful about making statements like that in a public forum, because if I were a lawyer for them I would probably try to use that to show that you held a grudge against Toyota out of a sense of economic nationalism. I think this is an interesting case in terms of confidentiality versus the need to disclose, but I think we are better off not discussing your feelings toward Toyota.

Jens Wilkinson

[Natalie Arnold]

>...if I were a lawyer for them I would probably try to use that to show that you held a grudge against Toyota out of a sense of economic nationalism.

How could an Israeli be suspected of economic nationlism toward America, exactly?

More relevantly, as a relative newcomer to translation as a career, I just want to express my sincere respect and admiration for Ms. Benjaminson.  You are a role model now! Thanks for discussing this where the less well-connected can hear it.

--
----------------------------------------------
Natalie Arnold @ Osaka

[Herman]

On 6/11/2013 21:05, B. Benjaminson wrote:

> Whistleblowers are always subject to public questioning of their
> motives.That's part of it. Snowdon was given the epithet "narcissist"
> yesterday, among other things. This serves the interests of people
> abusing their power. Speculating on my motives will really get you
> nowhere. In truth, there are many intertwining motives at work here and
> in any such case. They don't matter. What matters is whether my act can
> improve public safety. The true impact, if any, will take many years to
> know. I am facing many more years of unpaid hard work before this job is
> done.

Well, in saying that "They [motives] don't matter. What matters is
whether my act can improve public safety." you are making an opaque and
contradictory statement, because in effect you are saying that
"improving public safety" is your motive and that it does matter, but
"motives" in general don't matter. Meaning what - that in assessing a
decision or trying to make an ethical decision pertaining to
professional conduct, we need not consider the full set of inputs
(motives, beliefs, observations, circumstances, etc.) to that decision,
so long as there is one good one (improving public safety, preventing
future harm)? Taking that position would hollow out and negate any
system of professional ethics - with a sufficiently narrow vision one
can 'see' (and justify) just about anything.

I think you misunderstand the purport of what I was saying before, so I
will try to say the same thing in a different way.

The ATA code of ethics lists the following as the first two items:

"1. to convey meaning between people and cultures faithfully,
accurately, and impartially;

2. to hold in confidence any privileged and/or confidential
information entrusted to us in the course of our work;"

I addressed 2, but the same point can perhaps more clearly be made with
reference to 1.

You have the text

ネガティブ論調の発信源は、せいぜい１０人程度です。
これを抑えてば、何とかなると思います。
おっしゃる通り、個別撃破のつもりでいきましょう。

In accordance with 1 above, this may be rendered for instance as

"The sources of the negative tone are at most about 10 people.
If we get them under control, I think things will be okay.
As you say, let us proceed with the intent of crushing them one by one."

Well, if you concluded that such a translation just won't exert enough
pressure to get the public safety improvement results you want, maybe
you could rephrase it as

"We got their money so now we can let those white devils die. We will
never fix their cars. Long live the Emperor!"

Well, I am sure we can all imagine some scenario in which furnishing
that sort of translation may be desirable, but at the same time, it is
easy to see that this sort of approach to translation, where translators
modify content in pursuit of their own values and objectives, would
quickly destroy translation as a profession. And it is easy to see that
this would happen regardless of whether the values and objective being
pursued were something noble, like public safety or public health, or
something ignoble, such as personal gain or "because I hate that guy".

Although maybe less obvious in its significance, "confidentiality" is
almost equally important to the translation process or translation
industry, inasmuch as a very large portion of the material translated is
confidential.

Not that the whole world revolves around the "translation industry", but
it does play a critical role in international communication and the
like, which ultimately comes down to issues which determine whether
people will live or die. Likewise with the legal system, which provides
a means for people to resolve disputes without resorting to violence,
thereby preventing needless deaths and injuries. People's well-being
doesn't hinge solely on some specific defects in Toyota cars, which may
or may not be fixed as a result of disclosing some documents. The matter
is not that one-sided.

Herman Kahn

[Mark Buckeridge]

Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:43:19 +0900, apud Jens Wilkinson <jenswi...@gmail.com> [Re: Japan Times article on document leak by translator], hoc legimus

> This is a little late, but I think you should be very careful about making statements like that in a public forum, because if I were a lawyer for them I would probably try to use that to show that you held a grudge against Toyota out of a sense of economic nationalism. I think this is an interesting case in terms of confidentiality versus the need to disclose, but I think we are better off not discussing your feelings toward Toyota.
>
> Jens Wilkinson
>

I agree with Jens' advice to focus discussion on general issues related to ethical concerns when confronted with such a situation, and to where possible avoid particular statements regarding the parties involved in this incident only. This has been a very interesting thread, as it is not often that we get a chance to read the thought processes involved in dealing with such internal conflicts. I thank Betsy for opening up here, even if I am concerned that she may be being a little too open.

I know that Betsy is taking a break from this thread for a while, but I feel compelled to add that I would avoid suggestions that any particular faith has an influence here. Although I doubt that Betsy is claiming that Judaism has a monopoly on ethics, nor, more contraversally, that her actions are representative of all Jewry, her position is not entirely clear from her words.

Mark Buckeridge

[Laurie Berman]

On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:32 AM, B. Benjaminson wrote:

I don't regard T as having set out to do intentional harm, but instead to make money while disregard warnings and reports of the harmful consequences to consumers (and also to workers and suppliers).

We know this already, because Toyota was fined tens of millions of dollars for it, after being forced to recall millions of cars to fix problems with the accelerators. (If only all big companies were held to account for similarly irresponsible behavior, the world would be a safer, healthier place.) To some, this might suggest that that Toyota's power to silence the US media and the US government and everyone else in the US is not, after all, limitless. Not that it isn't powerful, mind you. It's just not the only game in town. There are lots of interests out there, including some pretty powerful ones that have much to gain from Toyota's loss.

The issue now, as I see it hinges entirely on whether there still exists an unacknowledged problem hiding beneath the acknowledged problems. As to that . . .

The two snippets I gave you were examples. The full picture can be seen by assembling many dozens of documents with various admissions such as this one. 

Let's face it, we will never see the whole picture. But the legal experts who looked at your documents concluded that there was no smoking gun. 

Laurie Berman

[Mark Spahn]

A side-question...

> ネガティブ論調の発信源は、せいぜい１０人程度です。
> これを抑えてば、何とかなると思います。
> おっしゃる通り、個別撃破のつもりでいきましょう。

is translated as

> "The sources of the negative tone are at most about 10 people.
> If we get them under control, I think things will be okay.
> As you say, let us proceed with the intent of crushing them one by one."
>

That's an admirable translation, but
I don't understand the grammar of 抑えてば.
Shouldn't this be either "osaereba" or "osaete ireba"?
If this is a misprint, did it appear in the
original text, or somewhere along the quotation-trail?
Do native speakers sometimes speak this way?

[Mark Spahn]

Here's another way of looking at the engineering issues

in this and similar cases:  as an example of

"The Perils of Mistranslation".

 

In the Model T, the driver's muscle energy was transmitted

(via a mechanism called a "transmission") to the parts

of the vehicle that need to move.  His turning of the

steering wheel was transmitted by cables to the front

wheels, and his pressing of the brake was similarly

mechanically transmitted to the brake shoes.

 

But in a modern vehicle, the actions of the driver are

not transmitted directly to mechanical actuators, but

are taken as suggestions made to an electronic brain

that makes the real decisions.  When this arrangement

works right, performance is improved.  The driver's

sudden, panicked slamming on the brake pedal, along

with data from an ambient-temperature sensor, is

interpreted by an Automatic Braking System (ABS)

as a need to stop the car on an icy road, with intermittent

"pumping" of the brake at a rate faster than a human

is capable of. 

 

But with lots of inputs (some of which may be incorrect

due to corrosion or some other cause), things get complicated.

Occasionally, the supposedly all-knowing, all-competent

brain of the vehicle gets confused and takes the wrong action.

This amounts to a misinterpretation of the driver's intentions.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire 

is what this is called:  the driver (of a car or airplane)

makes requests to the vehicle's electronics system,

which makes the real decisions about what to do.

Are aircraft fly-by-wire systems less error-prone

than ground-vehicle fly(drive)-by-wire systems?

Do aircraft manufacturers have different, and more

successful, ways of developing complex control systems

than automobile manufacturers have?   

[Mika Jarmusz]

Mark Spahn wrote:

>> If we get them under control, I think things will be okay.
>> As you say, let us proceed with the intent of crushing them one by one."
> That's an admirable translation, but I don't understand the grammar of 抑えてば.
> Shouldn't this be either "osaereba" or "osaete ireba"?

Yes. As a native Japanese speaker, I cannot think of any room for different interpretation, thus it's mentally categorized as a simple misspelling of no significant consequence.

It's like having it as:
If we get them und control, I think things will be okay.

Herman's translation captures the nuance well.

Best Regards,

✴ Mika Jarmusz

[Jens Wilkinson]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Mark Spahn <mark...@verizon.net> wrote:

A side-question...

ネガティブ論調の発信源は、せいぜい１０人程度です。
これを抑えてば、何とかなると思います。
おっしゃる通り、個別撃破のつもりでいきましょう。

is translated as

"The sources of the negative tone are at most about 10 people.
If we get them under control, I think things will be okay.
As you say, let us proceed with the intent of crushing them one by one."

Actually, I have a question for native Japanese speakers as well. The phrase that appears,  個別撃破, is translated as "crushing them one by one," but I wonder if that is the real nuance of that. I know that Japanese often say things like 個別攻撃 not so much in a negative sense, but in a more general sense of "taking them on one by one." Like for example, if you have to get approval for something, you might want to talk to all the board members individually instead of waiting until the board meeting itself. In those cases, I think people say things like, 一人ひとりに倒しましょう not in a literal meaning of actually destroying them, but in a sense of "winning them over." What about that phrase? Does it clearly mean "crush them" or could it mean something more vague like "dealing them them"?

--
Jens Wilkinson

[B. Benjaminson]

Laurie,

The reporter will be here soon to interview me...I will try to answer you and perhaps others in the meantime.

First. please let me correct some misconceptions in your message.

The fines were paid on the basis of Toyota's illegal delayed reporting of defects related to the mat and pedal.

There does definitely exist an  unacknowledged problem hiding beneath the acknowledged problems. That is why I disclosed the documents. These kinds of unacknowledged problems (electronic glitches causing dangerous vehicle behavior including SUA also have high incidence rates in other makes such as Ford, and to some extent also Hundai/KIA. Toyota is just one example of a problem endemic to the entire industry, which is that there is insufficient functional safety engineering of automotive electronics.

The men who reviewed my documents were engineers, not legal experts. The reporter wrote that they did not find a "smoking gun," and that is quite accurate. As I have learned, the media definition of "smoking gun" is NOT "100 documents that clearly show engineers were gravely concerned about technical problems not disclosed to the public" but "a one page memo between executives that admits the problem (technical cause and vehicle behavior effect) and proposes a cover-up."  That such a smoking gun does not exist does not prove the absence of a problem. It means that Toyota people did not write it down, or if they did, I did not get it.

The actual detailed opinions of these experts, in which they raise many serious concerns based on their reading of the docs, were not reported because the magazine's readership is lawyers, not engineers. 

Each time I get in the news, some lawyer in the media organization has determined that reporting this news is legally justified, at least from their own perspective.

In haste,

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

 

[Adam H]

> That's an admirable translation, but I don't understand the grammar of 抑えてば.
> Shouldn't this be either "osaereba" or "osaete ireba"?

This is not the first time I've seen such conjugation. I believe it's a colloquial corruption of "osaereba" or "osaete ireba", and is technically incorrect, but still used by some people. I tend to think of it as being similar in nature to the British slang "innit" form of "isn't it"; derived from it's pronunciation and sometimes used despite not being a part of formal language.

 

Adam Harding

[B. Benjaminson]

Mark,

The reporter is delayed. So I have a little more time to write.

I am not afraid of Toyota or their lawyers. I am entitled to be as open as I want. I have lawyers.

If Toyota's lawyers want to sue me, they can. Let them go ahead. I have nothing to hide, and plenty to say.

Mark, to clarify. I don't mean to preach. Anyone can do whatever they want.

I am a Jew and also a regular human being with a regular heart which was breaking on behalf of crash victims past, present, and future. So I asked my rabbi and I got guidance and I did my best to listen. He fit the facts to Jewish law and ethics rules. This rabbi is an economist also, and an internationally recognized business ethics expert--fully capable of understanding the political and legal context as well, and not your stereotypical black-hatted type. I based my decision very specifically on those ethics rules, and I am not sorry about it and I think that is a legitimate part of this story. Jews have a very wise and extremely detailed code of ethics, (and I grant that few Jews are actually capable of following it 100% or even 50%) and so I tapped into it as a resource. Anyone, Jewish or not, can follow any code of ethics that they want, and then stand to be judged whether they did the right thing. 

It was my only practical choice for obtaining guidance, because no lawyer or law professor can ever advise me to breach a contract even if they personally believe it to be justified--they have to leave the decision to me. All they will discuss is the risk. And is any translator code of ethics detailed enough to be consulted and matched exactly to the myriad details of my situation? Frankly, I did not investigate because how could they cover decisions about disclosure to potentially save many lives? Anyway, Jewish tradition holds that if you have a serious question about proper conduct, you must discuss it and obtain custom-tailored guidance from the type of rabbi who is specifically credentialled for answering Jewish legal and ethical questions.  This has worked out well for two reasons--the rabbi has kept me focused on the overarching purpose of this project, and also, I have now a bond of respect with him that gives me more strength to see it through to the end--even if the end is many years from now.

I hope that each translator who is faced with any such decision in the future can find their own personal source of strong and wise guidance.

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

[B. Benjaminson]

Herman,

I am befuddled. You are so much smarter than me. I need a few days to consider my answer to you.

So please wait.

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

Herman Kahn

[B. Benjaminson]

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:35 AM, Mark Spahn <mark...@verizon.net> wrote:

Here's another way of looking at the engineering issues

in this and similar cases:  as an example of

"The Perils of Mistranslation".

 

<snip>

 

Are aircraft fly-by-wire systems less error-prone

than ground-vehicle fly(drive)-by-wire systems

YES.

 

Do aircraft manufacturers have different, and more

successful, ways of developing complex control systems

than automobile manufacturers have?   

-- Mark Spahn  (West Seneca, NY)

 

YES.

Automakers could use these development methods too, if they wanted to, and they are very slowly adopting them, but because there is no effective consumer lobby demanding that they use them, by and large they don't. To save money. Aircraft mfrs have airlines as customers. They have a lot more clout and can demand the most stringent safety systems.

I am working with others to try to bring the auto industry up to the same standards as everyone else, but this project will take many years if it is accomplished at all, due to the political power of automakers.

Betsy Benjaminson

(Sderot, Israel)

-

[timl...@aol.com]

In any case I want a manual override, perhaps a big red lever, which
for example would short out the injectors. Presumably the computer (or
any sane part thereof still functioning) would simply register this as
a component fault, not something requiring a wholesale reset (as if I'd
care at that point).

Tim Leeney

--

[Herman]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/01/us/toyota-memo-acceleration-concerns

This particular confidential Toyota document clearly proves the sorry
state of Japanese-English translation.

Herman Kahn

[B. Benjaminson]

Herman,

<Big chuckle>

Maybe yes and maybe no.

In my view, it more clearly proves how Toyota intimidates media and the sorry state of what the public learns as a result of that intimidation.

Kind regards,

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

Herman Kahn

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Honyaku E<>J translation list" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to honyaku+u...@googlegroups.com.

[B. Benjaminson]

Jens,

I am perfectly happy if Toyota's lawyers know how I feel. But I have already been interviewed and it is on the record (in the CC article) that I was favorably disposed to Toyota and Japan until I read these documents, and I remain favorably disposed in general even today, I might add. 

Anyway, it has no bearing on any prospective legal matter, as far as I know.

I do not think it has yet been reported, but I also read dozens of pages of complaints about SUA incidents by Japanese drivers of Toyota vehicles. So this problem cannot be defined as Americans vs. Japanese in actual fact. 

On some more remote level, I am trying to represent not only the interests of American consumers, but also all people of the world in their need for road safety. 1.2 million people die every year in auto accidents while the industry rakes in $2 trillion. I'd also love it if these disclosures would benefit Toyota workers and suppliers, who are now so hard pressed to make more for less that the quality problems have surfaced as a result, and really, they need some more support.

Best,

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

Jens Wilkinson

[Mark Spahn]

Herman <sl...@lmi.net> wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/01/us/toyota-memo-acceleration-concerns
This particular confidential Toyota document clearly proves the sorry
state of Japanese-English translation.

 

Betsy replied:

<Big chuckle>

Maybe yes and maybe no.

In my view, it more clearly proves how Toyota intimidates media and the sorry state of what the public learns as a result of that intimidation.

- - - - - - -

I read the accompanying documents cursorily, with not nearly the care I would read them if I were a juror.  (I thought ACC stood for "acceleration" or "accelerator" and I wondered where the "cruise control" seen in the English translation came from.  It turns out that ACC stands for Adaptive Cruise Control.)

I find the Toyota argument pretty persuasive; it is summarized in

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/02/26/toyota.2-22-2012.letter.to.cnn.pdf .

 

If there is a problem with the electronics in Toyota cars, this particular document is not evidence of it. Couldn't some more-telling document be found?

CNN, for its part, has acted correctly in letting each side have its say in its broadcast, and especially in attaching all the documents, in both Japanese and English, to its website report.  Link are listed here:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/01/us/toyota-acceleration-documents/index.html 

[B. Benjaminson]

Mark,

Toyota's arguments are persuasive to the general public who don't know what is really under the hood. But they are not persuasive at all if you know what I know and what independent experts know.

If I wanted, I could pick apart this letter line by line and completely refute it with evidence and expert opinion.

If you can accept my view that Toyota execs and engineers have lied under oath to Congress, what gives you confidence in their statements to the media?

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

--

[Laurie Berman]

On Jun 13, 2013, at 12:17 AM, B. Benjaminson wrote:

There does definitely exist an  unacknowledged problem hiding beneath the acknowledged problems. That is why I disclosed the documents. 

Betsy, the point is that there is an army of experts who have studied the issue saying that there isn't another problem, and so far no proof that there is, just your repeated assurance.

Once you've undermined the credibility of every reputable neutral organization with the resources to gather and analyze the evidence (which includes a whole lot of stuff beyond your 100 documents), what's left is your word and our general feelings of suspicion and hostility toward the powers that be. Of course, there is no hard proof, because the evil powers have destroyed it or are concealing it, but if we had access to all the detailed information at your disposal and time to examine it carefully--and your specialized knowledge, of course--we would immediately see the light. This is how conspiracy theories of all sorts take hold. 

I am not questioning your motives, and I am not dismissing your assertion that there are electronics issues endemic to the industry. About once very month or so the driver's side door of my Honda Insight refuses to unlock--but of course, it will never do that when I take it to the garage, so I can't get it fixed. What if the same thing happened with my throttle or my brakes? I can easily believe there are valid concerns about the safety of automotive electronics in general, but if the problem is endemic to the industry, then the single-minded focus on Toyota (what some might even call scapegoating) may actually be diverting attention from that more fundamental problem.

Laurie Berman

[Mark Spahn]

Betsy,

I am basing my view on the Japanese document that was presented in this CNN report.  I was expecting a "smoking gun" but saw a disappointingly innocuous document, one that is consistent with a to-be-expected procedure when testing out the electronics in a car:  try to make the electronics fail, see what happens, modify.  Rinse and repeat.

You write:  "Toyota's arguments are persuasive to the general public who don't know what is really under the hood. But they are not persuasive at all if you know what I know and what independent experts know.

If I wanted, I could pick apart this letter line by line and completely refute it with evidence and expert opinion." 

Okay.  If I knew what you know, I might be persuaded, but you'd have to tell me in some detail what you know.  You say you can refute this letter from Toyota's lawyers (which statements, exactly?) with evidence and expert opinion, but any fair juror would want to see the evidence. 

You further write:  "If you can accept my view that Toyota execs and engineers have lied under oath to Congress, what gives you confidence in their statements to the media?"

I can accept that people have lied, but not just on someone's say-so; a juror will want to see evidence of specific lies.

 

You may have a very persuasive case, and I don't expect you to have made it already, but in order to persuade a jury and the public (few of whom will follow the case in detail), you have to actually make the case.  This will be detailed and time-consuming (of book length?).  I look forward to further developments, with lots of specifics.  I'm ready to be persuaded, but what persuades is evidence, not assertions.

[Herman]

On 6/13/2013 01:11, B. Benjaminson wrote:
> Herman,
> <Big chuckle>
> Maybe yes and maybe no.
> In my view, it more clearly proves how Toyota intimidates media and the
> sorry state of what the public learns as a result of that intimidation.
> Kind regards,
> Betsy Benjaminson
> Sderot, Israel
>

Well, if you actually read all the text, it is clear that the media
(CNN), in this case at least, did not report what Toyota wanted them to,
but rather the exact opposite.

For example, the article starts out "Toyota engineers found an
electronic software problem that caused 'sudden unintended acceleration'
in a test vehicle", while the letters from Toyota and the statement of
the Toyota engineer categorically deny that.

The offending text “アクセルセンサ異常時全車速ACCが勝手に発進” was
variously rendered in the three CNN translations as

"the cruise control activates by itself at full throttle when the
accelerator pedal position sensor is abnormal."

"sudden unintended acceleration due to wrong judgment made by the full
speed range Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) System when there is an
abnormality with the accelerator pedal position sensor"

"the accelerator malfunction that caused the vehicle to accelerate on
its own"

The problems with these translations are discussed here:
http://blog.nishinos.com/archives/4129055.html
http://translators.blog65.fc2.com/blog-entry-88.html

On the other hand, the statements from Toyota, why amply refuting the
inaccurate translations which this report drew upon, never really
acknowledge or explain the substance of the problem referenced in the
document. This on one level seems odd, since the problem is one that was
discovered in a prototype vehicle and fixed, which is the very purpose
of testing prototype vehicles.

One possible explanation can be found in the context or nature of the
communication itself. Namely, a clear acknowledgement of a problem -
even if it be one that was detected and fixed at the prototype stage and
one which never resulted in any accidents or the like - so long as the
problem is even vaguely related to the subject matter of product
liability litigation, can easily cost the company billions. In this
regard, what the statement actually means does not matter nearly as much
as how various snippets of it could be spun by the media or opposing
counsel to make it say whatever the latter desired.

From this perspective, I think it is clear that the ethically
problematic acts of "intentional mistranslation" and "disclosing
confidential documents" can be nearly equivalent in serving as vehicles
of miscommunication.

Herman Kahn

[Mark Spahn]

http://translators.blog65.fc2.com/blog-entry-88.html
discusses three purported translations of
全車速ACCが勝手に発進 .

Other documents establish that ACC stands for
Adaptive Cruise Control (not ACCelerator).
And this says the ACC starts on its own.
But what does the 全車速 mean,and what does it modify?
Does it modify the 発進発進 and mean
"the ACC starts up sua sponte at full vehicle speed"?
So the vehicle jerks ahead all by itself at top speed?
No, suggests this discussion: the 全車速 modifies
the ACC and says that it is an Adaptive Cruise Control
that operates over the entire *range* of vehicle speeds,
from standstill to top speed:
全車速ACC（停止から高速までの全ての車速域で機能する
クルーズコントロールです).
So it's an all-vehicle-speeds Adaptive Cruise Control.
Naruhodo.

[Steven P. Venti]

Herman <sl...@lmi.net> wrote:
> . . . I think it is clear that the ethically problematic acts of "intentional

> mistranslation" and "disclosing confidential documents" can be nearly
> equivalent in serving as vehicles of miscommunication.

Henry David Thoreau was once arrested for failure to pay his poll taxes over a
six-year period. Supposedly, Ralph Waldo Emerson went to the jail to see what
the matter was, and seeing his friend behind bars blurted out: Henry, why are
you in there? Thoreau gave Emerson a bemused look and asked: Ralph, why
_aren't_ you in here?

Rumor also has it that when Rosa Parks was taken to jail for sitting in the
wrong part of the bus, the arresting officer said: Sorry, ma'am, but we don't
allow no ethically problematic acts 'round here.

Clearly, one man's "ethically problematic act" is another man's "civil
disobedience." And at a time when governments spy on their own citizenry while
accusing those who blow the whistle on such behavior of being traitors and
aiding terrorism, I personally find arguments that boil down to little more
than "don't bite the hand that feeds you" to be less than persuasive. Rather,
I would tend to be supportive of those who acted on conscience, because they
have actually put their livelihoods (and perhaps even their lives) on the line
in taking action that prompts the rest of us to take a closer look at
situations that deserve reconsideration.


Thus, I am willing to allow that, were I privy to the exact same information
that Ms. Benjaminson was privy to, I might have taken the exact same action.
That being said, my gut feeling is that I probably would not have been so
unequivocal about what I had seen, but that is a moot point at this time.

Of more interest to me are the ramifications that this will have for the JE
translation market. One obvious issue is that it is extremely difficult to
translate in-house documentation accurately, and both individual translators
and translation agencies alike should probably be a bit more proactive in
alerting end clients to this. Another issue that I suspect will emerge over
the short term will be a quasi-xenophobic reaction, in which the translation
of sensitive material is no longer entrusted to outside vendors but instead is
handled by in-house translators. In that sense, there are clearly some
negative ramifications for freelance translators working in this field,
although I think that the overall trend in the manufacturing sector in general
and the automotive industry in particular is already headed in that direction.

FWIW

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Venti
spv...@bhk-limited.com

I would not wish to any of them what I have had to suffer
for things that I am not guilty of. But my conviction is that
I have suffered for things that I am guilty of.
-- Bartolomeo Vanzetti
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Jens Wilkinson]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Natalie Arnold <nat.m....@gmail.com> wrote:

>...if I were a lawyer for them I would probably try to use that to show that you held a grudge against Toyota out of a sense of economic nationalism.

How could an Israeli be suspected of economic nationlism toward America, exactly?

Sorry if that appeared to be an accusation. That wasn't what I meant to say, but I was just warning Betsy that there might be a danger in saying things on a a public forum that might be understood to be expressing some kind of grudge toward Toyota. Another example is the fact that she wrote in one post about the low rates that Toyota paid, and if this came to a court case and I was a lawyer for the other side, I would probably pick up on that and at least ask a question like this: "You stated in a forum on xxx that you felt the translation rates paid by Toyota were too low. Did you decide to make those documents public because you wanted to punish Toyota for that?" Because that's how lawyers think when they're trying to question a person's credibility. And it would force her to defend herself against the charge, which just detracts from the real issue.

As far as this whole issue is concerned, I'm not sure exactly why she brought it to us but I suppose there are two things that we can address competently: one is the quality of the translations, and the other is what a translator should do in an ethical dilemma like that. On the issue that seems to be coming up, i.e. whether it was an electronic fault or whatever, I feel totally unqualified to make any judgement. It's really something that the NTSB has to worry about.

--
Jens Wilkinson

[Tom Donahue]

Herman wrote:

> "the accelerator malfunction that caused the vehicle to accelerate
> on its own"

In itself, "accelerate on its own" doesn't seem like such an
outrageous translation of 勝手に発進. Nor did any of the others. The
problem is that they get the context wrong.

As the engineer explained on the video, the ACC system is designed to
respond to the driver stepping on the accelerator. If you see a car
coming from behind and don't want it to hit you, then you should be
able to accelerate manually.

The thing here is that this particular test involved special
circumstances -- an object (like another car) directly in front of the
test car, so that under these circumstances the ACC system should NOT
respond. If it did, when it wasn't supposed to, then THAT would be
勝手に発進. But it didn't. In this case the system passed the test.

This is all complicated by the fact that the acceleration signal was
caused by a sensor failure. Which of course is possible. Obviously it
will fail if the engineers make it fail on purpose, to see what
happens. Dealing with that is the responsibility of another system,
which also responded properly, according to the engineer in the video
-- setting off the warning to the driver, and doing other stuff that
apparently drivers in real life say they never saw.

So by itself, out of context, 勝手に発進 sounds really bad. But how bad is
it? We don't know. Apparently there were adjusting some threshold,
below which accelerating is 勝手に, and above which it isn't. But the
announcer didn't seem to follow that. He was just freaked out by the
idea that a sensor could fail, and couldn't get past the words "on its
own".

--
Tom Donahue

[Herman]

On 6/13/2013 15:21, Steven P. Venti wrote:
> Herman <sl...@lmi.net> wrote:
>> . . . I think it is clear that the ethically problematic acts of "intentional
>> mistranslation" and "disclosing confidential documents" can be nearly
>> equivalent in serving as vehicles of miscommunication.
>

> Rumor also has it that when Rosa Parks was taken to jail for sitting in the
> wrong part of the bus, the arresting officer said: Sorry, ma'am, but we don't
> allow no ethically problematic acts 'round here.
>
> Clearly, one man's "ethically problematic act" is another man's "civil
> disobedience." And at a time when governments spy on their own citizenry while
> accusing those who blow the whistle on such behavior of being traitors and
> aiding terrorism, I personally find arguments that boil down to little more
> than "don't bite the hand that feeds you" to be less than persuasive. Rather,
> I would tend to be supportive of those who acted on conscience, because they
> have actually put their livelihoods (and perhaps even their lives) on the line
> in taking action that prompts the rest of us to take a closer look at
> situations that deserve reconsideration.

"Civil disobedience" may be defined as the intentional refusal to obey
certain laws for the purpose of protesting against those laws or some
other injustice.

On the other hand, what I meant by "ethically problematic acts" is acts
which it is difficult to incorporate into a code of professional ethics
- i.e. where it is difficult or, I would argue, at times altogether
impossible, to specify under what conditions is this sort of act
permissible. Saying that does not constitute a condemnation of the act
itself.

Thus, an act of "civil disobedience" may or may not be ethically
problematic, and an "ethical problematic act" may or may not constitute
civil disobedience. The two concepts are largely orthogonal.

For example, one could applaud somebody for quitting his job with the
Red Cross and risking his life by joining a side in a particular war,
because one strongly believes that side is just and good and the other
unjust and evil, or for whatever reasons. At the same time, one may find
it problematic that an organization such as the Red Cross or active
members thereof should enter combat on the side of one of the
belligerents. Such an act would be ethically problematic because an aid
organization such as the Red Cross is able to function as it does to aid
people in war zones precisely because it and its active members do not
enter combat on behalf of or otherwise specially support any belligerent.

Yes, the world may need brave combatants willing to save people from
brutal tyrants or the like, but it also needs less brave aid workers to
save people from the process of being saved from brutal tyrants. So the
matter is not one-sided.

That is the point I was trying to make. It's not about "not biting the
hand that feeds you" but more like "not biting the hand with which you
feed the world", or just biting it as little as possible.

Herman Kahn

[Herman]

On 6/13/2013 18:22, Tom Donahue wrote:

> In itself, "accelerate on its own" doesn't seem like such an
> outrageous translation of 勝手に発進. Nor did any of the others. The
> problem is that they get the context wrong.
>
> As the engineer explained on the video, the ACC system is designed to
> respond to the driver stepping on the accelerator. If you see a car
> coming from behind and don't want it to hit you, then you should be
> able to accelerate manually.
>
> The thing here is that this particular test involved special
> circumstances -- an object (like another car) directly in front of the
> test car, so that under these circumstances the ACC system should NOT
> respond. If it did, when it wasn't supposed to, then THAT would be
> 勝手に発進. But it didn't. In this case the system passed the test.

There was some subtle (or not so subtle) obfuscation, probably based on
attorneys' instructions not to admit to any specific flaw, even if one
that was corrected at the prototype stage. The prototype being tested
here may have passed this test, but the document referenced another
model which presumably had the problem being tested for, as suggested by
the language "再発防止". I guess the interviewer, busy with his own
mistranslation-fueled agenda, didn't catch on to this.

Herman Kahn

[B. Benjaminson]

Steve,

Thank you very much for your comments. I quoted your comment about Rosa Parks on my FB page..! Toyota likes to seize the high moral ground to attempt to discredit any detractors. I see this over and over.

I think you are right that these disclosures of mine may have negative ramifications for freelance translators, and I apologize to all whose translation businesses may be harmed. To reduce risk, corporate lawyers and defense counsel will now tend to assign discovery translation work to bilingual lawyers rather than translators. I think there are rules against in-house translation of discovery documents. 

Lawyers are lower risk, obviously, because they are licensed and fear the loss of same if they blow the whistle on even obvious, ongoing misconduct by their clients. Toyota did already destroy one of its inside counsel who did blow the whistle about what he saw as Toyota's discovery fraud. That lawyer, Dimitrios Biller, seems to still have a law license last I heard (which was some time ago), but he is completely bankrupt and out of the picture. 

But while it may be prudent to avoid giving sentient translators incriminating documents, assigning work to lawyers only just gives corporate wrongdoers and their law firms more secure cover. One lawyer posted in an underground lawyers' forum:

"Many of us who read this forum might not have imagined doing what Ms. Benjaminson did but must have thought about blowing the whistle on law firms for a host of unethical acts (crime appears more accurate than malpractice) permitted/encouraged in the review rooms by reporting to corporate clients and/or DOJ etc.

Has anyone heard of reviewers (or anybody) blowing the whistle on law firms? Sort of like the McDermott case by reviewers (what happened to McDermott and john/Jane Doe Reviewers/Defendants?)"

Can any lawyers or others familiar with "McDermott case" enlighten us about it? I've been very curious but this question was not answered on that forum. One of my many ancillary concerns has been the role of law firms as enablers of the ongoing public safety risk. Yes the US legal system is important and mainly works to protect the public. But it is not working perfectly and I am concerned specifically with its broken aspects.

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 1:21 AM, Steven P. Venti <spv...@bhk-limited.com> wrote:

<snip>

Rumor also has it that when Rosa Parks was taken to jail for sitting in the
wrong part of the bus, the arresting officer said: Sorry, ma'am, but we don't
allow no ethically problematic acts 'round here.

<snip>

Of more interest to me are the ramifications that this will have for the JE
translation market. One obvious issue is that it is extremely difficult to
translate in-house documentation accurately, and both individual translators
and translation agencies alike should probably be a bit more proactive in
alerting end clients to this. Another issue that I suspect will emerge over
the short term will be a quasi-xenophobic reaction, in which the translation
of sensitive material is no longer entrusted to outside vendors but instead is
handled by in-house translators. In that sense, there are clearly some
negative ramifications for freelance translators working in this field,
although I think that the overall trend in the manufacturing sector in general
and the automotive industry in particular is already headed in that direction.

FWIW

-----------------------------------------------------------------
   Steve Venti
   spv...@bhk-limited.com

   I would not wish to any of them what I have had to suffer
   for things that I am not guilty of. But my conviction is that
   I have suffered for things that I am guilty of.
                                                          -- Bartolomeo Vanzetti
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[Fred Uleman]

If companies are really concerned about information security, they will stop outsourcing to China before they stop outsourcing to in-country freelancers. So what do they want? Information security or cheap translation?

- -- --- ---- ----- ---- --- -- -
Fred Uleman, translator emeritus

[Mark Spahn]

A few thoughts on this case...

 

The claim is that a car manufacturer, in developing its drive-by-wire vehicle control system (in which the driver does not control the vehicle directly but generates signals that are fed to a control system, which actually controls the vehicle's actuators by electrical signals transmitted through wires), was not as careful as it should have been.  Passenger airplanes have analogous fly-by-wire controls systems that feature more redundancy, to ensure correct operation of the plane even if one component in the system fails.

To prove this claim to a jury or the general public, an easy-to-follow narration must be developed, in which key parts of voluminous data are highlight to demonstrate slipshod procedures or lying.  A historic example of how this was once done is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_at_Any_Speed .

The CNN report describes the claim of poor manufacturing and the manufacturer's defense against the claim, but does not take sides.  And a reader who looks at the accompanying document and its translations and explanations will find that the document does not support the claim.  If the claim is true, then this particular document was a poor choice for a "smoking gun", because it is pretty smokeless.

The CNN report also referred to a device called an

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_data_recorder 

which is analogous to the "black box" on aircraft.  An EDR is meant to record the state of the vehicle in the seconds before a crash.  But what exactly does an EDR record?  Does it record whether and with what force a brake pedal is being pressed, or does it rather record what the car's electronic control system is told about this, possibly erroneously?  Are EDRs made redundant to protect against erroneous input?

[B. Benjaminson]

Mark,

"State of the art." 

Any manufacturer whose products are not state of the art seems to be subject to products liability.

However, unfortunately, this does not cross over from one industry to another. Courts do not require auto engineers to keep up with aircraft engineers, as far as I understand it. 

I disagree with your statement about the smokelessness of the document shown by CNN but I cannot possibly type all the reasons why.

Mark, I suggest we take this discussion off list. I'm getting fairly exhausted from typing to explain everything.

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

--

[timl...@aol.com]

Off list looks like a good idea at this stage.

IMHO of course

Tim Leeney


-----Original Message-----
From: B. Benjaminson <benj...@gmail.com>
To: honyaku <hon...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 7:32
Subject: Re: Japan Times article on document leak by translator

[Mark Spahn]

...

Mark, I suggest we take this discussion off list. I'm getting fairly exhausted from typing to explain everything.

Betsy Benjaminson

-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Betsy, 

Yes, the specifically translation-related parts of this discussion (e.g., what 全車速 means) have been pretty well exhausted, so elsewhere is the best place for a discussion of the non-translation-related part.  I merely wanted to take the role of a putative juror and point out the weakness of your case:  "With tons of documents to select from, this is the best they could find to demonstrate the sloppiness of the manufacturer's car-development procedures?  It seems to prove the opposite."

Two points:

(1) In advocacy cases like this, I imagine that nowadays websites are created to make the case, pro or con, to interested but disinterested people who just want to know the cases made by the two sides, starting from zero knowledge.  Does such a website exist in this case?

(2) Typing is unavoidable in a proper discussion.  Discussion by e-mail rather than by telephone conversation is preferable for a number of reasons:  (a) no need to coordinate times, (b) putting thoughts into writing disciplines the participants to make their points in a succinct way (ideally, anyway), (c) a record of the discussion is left, for future reference.  But tastes differ, and some people will prefer a spoken to a written back-and-forth.  I'm in the camp that prefers e-mail conversation to telephone conversation.  I don't know whether I'm in the majority here.  Has anyone collected statistics on this?

[Shinya Suzuki]

Tom Donahue wrote:

> Herman wrote:
>
> > "the accelerator malfunction that caused the vehicle to accelerate
> > on its own"
>
> In itself, "accelerate on its own" doesn't seem like such an
> outrageous translation of 勝手に発進. Nor did any of the others. The
> problem is that they get the context wrong.

Normally mobile entities like cars and trains can be the subject of
the intransitive verb 発進する (start moving). What is strange about
the sentence 全車速ACCが勝手に発進 is that the apparently immobile
(relative to the vehicle) electronic device called ACC (adaptive
cruise control [system]) is used as the subject of 発進 (assuming
it is indeed the subject). One possibility is that TOYOTA engineers
use 発進 as meaning "start operating". If that's the case, then
TOYOTA's claim is understandable. Namely the Japanese document under
discussion is not directly relevant to the issue of "sudden
unintended acceleration" which refers to the whole vehicle.

Just my two yen.

Shinya Suzuki

[Shinya Suzuki]

Mark Spahn wrote:
> > That's an admirable translation, but I don't understand the grammar of
> 抑えてば.
> > Shouldn't this be either "osaereba" or "osaete ireba"?

Adam H wrote:
> This is not the first time I've seen such conjugation. I believe it's a
> colloquial corruption of "osaereba" or "osaete ireba", and is technically
> incorrect, but still used by some people. <snip>

I'm 100% sure that 抑えてば is not a colloquial corruption of
"osaereba" or "osaete ireba" but just a typo. れ（re）can be quite
easily mistyped as て（te）simply because the T key is next to the R
key. IOW, 抑えてば is grammatically impossible or unthinkable.

Shinya Suzuki

[Tom Donahue]

Shinya Suzuki wrote:

> it is indeed the subject). One possibility is that TOYOTA engineers
> use 発進 as meaning "start operating". If that's the case, then
> TOYOTA's claim is understandable.

That's interesting, because it's exactly what the engineer in the
video said. She doesn't speak Japanese, but she was told that "on its
own" meant something like "become ready to operate". So perhaps 発進する
is Toyota jargon for 起動する, because they are automotive engineers?
Sounds dubious to me, but that's what she said.

On the basic question of the cause of market SUA, I'm also dubious
that it would show up in a test like this. If it was something as
simple as software failing to respond properly to a sensor failure,
they would have caught it by simulating a sensor failure, as they did
here. That would be cheap and easy to fix -- just plug in the car and
rewrite the software on the chip. If they haven't done this, and
assuming SUA does exist, it's because the cause is more complicated.

On the larger question of of whether automotive electronics make cars
unsafe, I don't think cars are safe in the first place, because of
drivers. I don't ride in cars and I don't like it that my wife does. A
couple of years ago she was in an accident where they were rear-ended
on the freeway. She was lucky to get away with a whiplash injury. If
the guy who hit them had been equipped with radar and this system,
that accident wouldn't have happened. So there's that to consider.

On the even larger question of transparency, yes, secrecy is a
problem. On the one hand, you have professional activists whose job is
to harass the government for trying to regulate anti-social behavior.
So you get activists demanding every email written by the head of the
EPA. In my home state of Washington, the income of every government
employee is available in an online database. So you get conservative
fanatics complaining about the salaries of bus drivers. Fair enough,
if you believe that buses are un-American. But where is the access in
the opposite direction? Who has access to every email written by the
chairman of Exxon? I would love to see what fossil fuel executives say
to each other. Do they believe the misinformation campaign being waged
on their behalf, or are they completely cynical?
So I'm not going to complain about whistleblowers like Betsy. No doubt
there was cynical behavior in some parts of the organization,
especially the PR department. That deserves to be called out, no
matter where it is.

--
Tom Donahue

[B. Benjaminson]

Dear list,

One last message on this thread and then I must quit, I am very tired and very busy with my next steps.

That is, I published all the documents so anyone can see them, including the J source and the English translations. I am sorry I forgot to mention this on the list.

Get to the docs online by searching my name on YouTube, where you will find a link to a dropbox folder in a 7 second video (hit "pause" to see the link). From Dropbox you can view or download the docs.

Please recall that I did not translate most of these and only edited many under very severe deadline pressure, so please no comments about the translation quality! I admit, it is uneven.

I will gladly accept any offered corrections, however, if anyone feels like going that far. 

With gratitude to one and all for a very interesting thread here this week. I learned a lot from you and I feel very glad to be part of this community.

Betsy Benjaminson

(Sderot, Israel)

[Herman]

On 6/14/2013 12:20, Tom Donahue wrote:
> Shinya Suzuki wrote:
>
>> it is indeed the subject). One possibility is that TOYOTA engineers
>> use 発進 as meaning "start operating". If that's the case, then
>> TOYOTA's claim is understandable.
>
> That's interesting, because it's exactly what the engineer in the
> video said. She doesn't speak Japanese, but she was told that "on its
> own" meant something like "become ready to operate". So perhaps 発進する
> is Toyota jargon for 起動する, because they are automotive engineers?
> Sounds dubious to me, but that's what she said.

In the document itself, "アクセルセンサ異常時全車速ACCが勝手に発進" is
explained as follows

"エンジンECU（送信側）では、アクセルセンサ異常時にアイドルOFF（アクセル
が踏まれていない状態）とする仕様となっていたが、ACC ECU （受信側）では、
アイドルON （アクセルが踏まれていない状態）となると誤認識していた。
よって、アクセルセンサ異常時にACC ECUはアクセルが踏まれたと誤判定しブ
レーキを解除し発進。"

I assume the second '踏まれていない状態' is a typo and should be '踏まれ
ている状態'.

Adaptive cruise control incorporates a radar which detects obstacles
(the leading vehicle, in particular). The way full speed range adaptive
cruise control (全車速ACC) works is that it brings the host vehicle to a
complete stop if the vehicle in front stops, but it will not (or is not
supposed to) "resume acceleration from a complete stop" (発進) on its
own (勝手に), meaning, without input from the driver, which can be
provided for example by tapping the accelerator pedal (which in this
vehicle is detected by the アクセルセンサ).

So in this case, the ACC ECU (controller) incorrectly interprets a fault
in the accelerator pedal sensor as indicating that the accelerator pedal
was depressed ("アクセルセンサ異常時にACC ECUはアクセルが踏まれたと誤判
定し") and consequently releases the brakes and goes to resume
acceleration (ブレーキを解除し発進).

Thus, ACCが勝手に発進 would be more reasonably understood as ACCが勝手に
車を発進[させる / させようとする], or something technically equivalent
thereto.

The resumption of acceleration may or may not in turn be overridden by
input from the radar, or whatever other factors may override this
operation of the ACC ECU - the document itself does not go into that,
and thus does not specify whether or not the vehicle actually
moved/accelerated or merely "tried" to do so, but it does indicate that
this 発進 attempt was not in accordance with specifications.

Herman Kahn

[Shinya Suzuki]

Herman wrote:

> Thus, ACCが勝手に発進 would be more reasonably understood as ACCが勝手に
> 車を発進[させる / させようとする], or something technically equivalent
> thereto.

That's certainly a possibility. The distinction between させる and さ
せようとする seems important as they lead to different results when
used in the past tense.

A: ACCが勝手に車を発進させた。→車は実際に発進した。
B: ACCが勝手に車を発進させようとした。→ 車が実際に発進したかどうか
は不明。

The question is: Which was meant by TOYOTA?

A seems more likely because ambiguity as in B is to be avoided in
engineering reports like this.

> The resumption of acceleration may or may not in turn be overridden by
> input from the radar, or whatever other factors may override this
> operation of the ACC ECU - the document itself does not go into that,
> and thus does not specify whether or not the vehicle actually
> moved/accelerated or merely "tried" to do so, but it does indicate that
> this 発進 attempt was not in accordance with specifications.

So you think B was meant by TOYOTA and 発進 (in your sense) can be
used even when the vehicle did not move at all.

Interestingly, my interpretation (C) in the previous post leads to
the same result as in B.

C: ACCが勝手に発進（＝作動/起動）した。→車が実際に発進したかどうか
は不明。

Shinya Suzuki

[Herman]

> A: ACCが勝手に車を発進させた。→車は実際に発進した。
> B: ACCが勝手に車を発進させようとした。→ 車が実際に発進したかどうか
> は不明。
>
> The question is: Which was meant by TOYOTA?
>
> A seems more likely because ambiguity as in B is to be avoided in
> engineering reports like this.
>

> So you think B was meant by TOYOTA and 発進 (in your sense) can be
> used even when the vehicle did not move at all.

Since the test to be carried out using this document involves measuring
signal levels rather than vehicle movement and seeks to answer the
question "does the controller treat a certain sensor fault condition as
a 'resume accel' instruction", I think 発進 could be used here without
undue ambiguity in the sense of 「発進モードに入る」, and 発進モード can
be expanded as 車を発進させる／させようとするモード - this would not be
technically ambiguous because whether the 発進させる action succeeds or
not, it is still the same mode.

Since the ACC works to maintain a fixed distance from the leading car,
if the leading car under the referenced field test had not moved, the
amount of movement of the test car may have been negligible, but
presumably, if the leading car had moved far away before the erroneous
resume instruction, the test vehicle would have accelerated to the
previously set cruising speed.

Since the distinction between A and B above is not relevant to the
technical subject matter, I don't think you can say that Toyota really
meant either one. It is only when the context changes from "internal
testing document" to "alleged smoking gun released to the media" that
this distinction becomes a question.

Herman Kahn

[B. Benjaminson]

All,

Here I am again to try to clarify, excuse me.

The translations may all have been wrong due to lack of context.

The document may not have been a big smoking gun all by itself.

As to the fine points of the source text meaning...i think you'll never know 100%, but it's fun to guess, isn't it?

But the key points of the news report that had legal importance were really nothing to do with the details of that test, but were instead 1) that signal errors were inadequately tested in another model, indicating a lack of rigor in engineering processes, 2) this document was responsive to a document request by Congress and was not produced, and 3) the problem is ongoing.

If Congress had unlimited resources and political will to fully address all issues of public safety, including re-opening previously closed cases such as this, they would have assigned investigators and issued subpoenas to Toyota to bring in engineers who could be deposed and reliably explain this particular document after the news emerged, and I think actual proof (not unsubstantiated claims to media) may well have been required that all such problems were fixed before cars were sold. Unfortunately, Hill politics does not readily facilitate this process at present. More effort is required; the outcome is still uncertain. Snowden's case was so dramatic and sudden. In contrast, the vast majority of whistleblowers have to grind through years and years of effort before getting the attention and active support of people in power.

 

To Mark--A whistleblower cannot and does not have to make the whole case, because they cannot possibly have access to all potentially available evidence on both sides, and cannot issue subpoenas. 

To Herman--A whistleblower's job is to just present evidence to govt or media that they believe indicates wrongdoing. Having imperfect evidence or evidence that requires expert substantiation is a normal state of affairs and in no way indicates a lack of prudence on the whistleblower's part.

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

 

[Steven P. Venti]

Shinya Suzuki <CXP0...@nifty.ne.jp> wrote:

> Herman wrote:
>> Thus, ACCが勝手に発進 would be more reasonably understood as ACCが勝手に
>> 車を発進[させる / させようとする], or something technically equivalent
>> thereto.
>
> That's certainly a possibility. The distinction between させる and さ
> せようとする seems important as they lead to different results when
> used in the past tense.
>
> A: ACCが勝手に車を発進させた。→車は実際に発進した。
> B: ACCが勝手に車を発進させようとした。→ 車が実際に発進したかどうか
> は不明。
>
> The question is: Which was meant by TOYOTA?
>
> A seems more likely because ambiguity as in B is to be avoided in
> engineering reports like this.

Actually, this goes directly to the issue I mentioned about the difficulties
of translating in-house documentation, which are fraught with this kind of
ambiguity precisely because they were written to keep people who are already
in the loop up to date.

I think that Herman's use of 発進させる does not imply that the car actually
moved during a test. Rather, it is simply a description of the system's
functionality, hence the use of the present tense to describe a habitual or
reoccurring condition.

> Interestingly, my interpretation (C) in the previous post leads to
> the same result as in B.
>
> C: ACCが勝手に発進（＝作動/起動）した。→車が実際に発進したかどうか
> は不明。

In my experience, it is true that there is often some ambiguity as to whether
発進 refers to an entire machine that starts to move or merely to the actuation
of a particular device on the machine.

But in the auto industry, 発進 has a very specific meaning that is often
translated as "initial acceleration," and my personal opinion is that it is unlikely
to mean something else in this context. Given this fact, 勝手に発進 does bear
a certain superficial resemblance to "sudden unintended acceleration,"
whatever that means. But without detailed definitions of both these terms and
several others in the document in question, it is impossible to know if the 勝
手に発進 here is indeed the same issue as the "sudden unintended acceleration"
described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_unintended_acceleration.

[Mika Jarmusz]

個別撃破 is a metaphoric expression. 

I'd say that 個別撃破 means "to breakthrough/tackle the obstacles individually" whereas 個別攻撃 would be "to attack them individually".  At any rate, のつもりでいきましょう is where the intention of the speaker/writer comes through (Japanese language has this convenient mechanism of identifying the speaker's position.)  So it can also be translated as 'Let's see them as individual challenges to overcome.'  Then it's followed by the note in parenthesis: "(I'm not suggesting any actions be taken.)"

Note that this statement also fits in the context where the company is wrongly accused.  (I'm not arguing that they are, or whatever.)

Betsy, anyone is welcome any time to talk about translation on this forum.  The Korean brand car crushing into a shop was unsettling, but I liked that you have posted the 'just shift into neutral gear' advice video.   I have not tried the Dropbox link...too many letters to type.  I'm not sure if I'd able to study much, even if I could access it, but was curious just a little.

✴ Mika Jarmusz 

On Jun 12, 2013, at 21:04, Jens Wilkinson <jenswi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Mark Spahn <mark...@verizon.net> wrote:

A side-question...

ネガティブ論調の発信源は、せいぜい１０人程度です。
これを抑えてば、何とかなると思います。
おっしゃる通り、個別撃破のつもりでいきましょう。

is translated as

"The sources of the negative tone are at most about 10 people.
If we get them under control, I think things will be okay.
As you say, let us proceed with the intent of crushing them one by one."

Actually, I have a question for native Japanese speakers as well. The phrase that appears,  個別撃破, is translated as "crushing them one by one," but I wonder if that is the real nuance of that. I know that Japanese often say things like 個別攻撃 not so much in a negative sense, but in a more general sense of "taking them on one by one." Like for example, if you have to get approval for something, you might want to talk to all the board members individually instead of waiting until the board meeting itself. In those cases, I think people say things like, 一人ひとりに倒しましょう not in a literal meaning of actually destroying them, but in a sense of "winning them over." What about that phrase? Does it clearly mean "crush them" or could it mean something more vague like "dealing them them"?

--
Jens Wilkinson

[Mika Jarmusz]

They said 全車速ACCが, and that's what they identified as needing fixing, so I see no need to make it sound more vague than necessary, i.e., whether the car moved our not is not the issue.

As Tom wrote earlier, whoever leaked that document misjudged the context. That particular story, at least, wouldn't qualify as being 'silenced' as far as I can tell from what's brought up here on this list.

Source:
アクセルセンサ異常時全車速ACCが勝手に発進

✴ Mika Jarmusz

[B. Benjaminson]

Mika-san,

The two experts who appeared in that news story and who confirmed the significance of the document itself, regardless of the exact meaning of the terms under discussion, played key roles as consultants to the US government during the Toyota recalls/hearings crisis and were more familiar than anyone in the world with the nature of all of the produced documents at that time. Further, one is a nationally recognized forensic automotive engineer who frequently serves as an expert witness in high-stakes products liability cases, and the other is the world's foremost electronics reliability expert, who happens to spend considerable time in Japan consulting to some of the country's leading industrial companies.

I think their opinions are more trustworthy than the opinions expressed on the list, although all the commentary has been most interesting.

BTW, there's been some off-line discussion among involved people on what Toyota ought to do next. Here's a well-grounded opinion that came my way: "What T needs to do to improve, to completely revamp the way they look at reliability .. from parts selection, to design-for-reliability, to testing and qualification and then in-situ systems health monitoring and prognostics."

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

[Shinya Suzuki]

Herman wrote:

> Since the test to be carried out using this document involves measuring
> signal levels rather than vehicle movement and seeks to answer the
> question "does the controller treat a certain sensor fault condition as
> a 'resume accel' instruction", I think 発進 could be used here without
> undue ambiguity in the sense of 「発進モードに入る」, and 発進モード can
> be expanded as 車を発進させる／させようとするモード - this would not be
> technically ambiguous because whether the 発進させる action succeeds or
> not, it is still the same mode.

The idea that 発進 means 発進モードに入る sounds reasonable both
linguistically and technically. I'm finally convinced of the plausibility
of your analysis.

ACCが勝手に発進（モードに入る）

Linguistically, the subject (actor) is ACC and 発進（モードに入る）
is its action. Technically, not only Herman's but also TOYOTA's own
explanations are consistent with this idea.

Adios to my semantically twisted hypothesis that requires a major
addition or change (作動/起動) to the meaning of 発進.

Many thanks to Herman for patiently enlightening me.

Shinya Suzuki

[Shinya Suzuki]

Steven P. Venti wrote:

> I think that Herman's use of 発進させる does not imply that the car actually
> moved during a test. Rather, it is simply a description of the system's
> functionality, hence the use of the present tense to describe a habitual or
> reoccurring condition.

I see now. The past tense is not applicable in cases like this.

> In my experience, it is true that there is often some ambiguity as to whether
> 発進 refers to an entire machine that starts to move or merely to the actuation
> of a particular device on the machine.
>
> But in the auto industry, 発進 has a very specific meaning that is often
> translated as "initial acceleration," and my personal opinion is that it is unlikely

> to mean something else in this context. <snip>

You have just completed the burial of my beloved hypothesis. <g>

Shinya Suzuki

[Herman]

On 6/15/2013 21:45, B. Benjaminson wrote:
> Mika-san,
> The two experts who appeared in that news story and who confirmed the
> significance of the document itself, regardless of the exact meaning of
> the terms under discussion, played key roles as consultants to the US
> government during the Toyota recalls/hearings crisis and were more

> I think their opinions are more trustworthy than the opinions expressed
> on the list, although all the commentary has been most interesting.

I think that is a questionable conclusion, for two reasons:

1. As consultants to the US government, which was a legal opponent of
Toyota in this dispute, as well as being an economic competitor (owner
of GM), these experts are not neutral observers. By contrast, most
people on this list probably have no direct relationship to any party to
this dispute.

2. These experts relied on erroneous translations to understand the
document, whereas the people on this list were looking at the original
text.

Herman Kahn

[Jens Wilkinson]

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 1:32 PM, B. Benjaminson <benj...@gmail.com> wrote:

As for the second snippet I provided, there is much public and private evidence that the plan to individually destroy opponents in media, expressed by the PR guy, was actually implemented.

As a translator, this is something I'd like to get a few more opinions about. I assume that the translation above "individually destroy opponents in media," comes from the following email:

ネガティブ論調の発信源は、せいぜい１０人程度です。
これを抑えてば、何とかなると思います。
おっしゃる通り、個別撃破のつもりでいきましょう。

（やるやらないは別として）

I think that Mika basically said that is not a correct translation of that, My own impression is that in Japanese, that phrase might mean "deal with them one by one" rather than "destroy." Apparently the literal meaning of the term (I'd never seen it before) is akin to "disarm" or "disable." Like for example, to demast a sailing ship rather than sink it. So I would assume what the PR guy meant was that they would call the people up, explain their side, perhaps complain to them, maybe complain to their bosses. But in any case, I'd be interested to hear what Japanese speakers think about this.

--
Jens Wilkinson

[B. Benjaminson]

Jens,

I'd also be interested to hear from native speakers. I translated that myself, then commissioned two other translations to be certain that I had not misunderstood, due to the sensitivity of this document. One was by a native Japanese speaker. The translation I used was a kind of synthesis of the three translations.

"Disarm" sounds pretty close.

I think that based on the public record, it is fair to say that the US House Energy & Commerce Committee was outraged at the tactics used by Toyota against two witnesses against Toyota (Gilbert and Kane) one of whom is also a blogger, so whatever the translation may turn out to be, the facts of how Toyota actually implemented this little plan were unacceptable in the U.S. 

Betsy Benjaminson

Sderot, Israel

--