I find it interesting that a report at this level blames individuals, and by implication individuals lower down in the organization: "Repeatedly, individuals failed to disclose critical pieces of information that could have changed the lives of those impacted by the faulty ignition switch."
Individuals, repeatedly = corporate culture issue
Responsibility has to rest with the top management and ultimately the board.
Having worked to top management in a lot of corporations, I gather this is the result to push for short term profits over anything else. Wikipedia cites NPR stating "General Motors was aware of this potential problem, and holding meetings about it, as early as 2005, but decided against fixing it because it would take too long and cost too much money." GM are not alone. This happens in a lot of corporations.
Corporate top management, including the past ones, need to stand up and be counted, and ultimately, prosecuted. They take risks and are paid for it, and there is a downside.
What you are seeing is just one tiny aspect of why GM should have gone through the full bankruptcy process - including breaking it up into smaller units. To paraphrase the oft used political slogan "GM is alive but its customers are dead."
This news story was one of the featured news reports on the latest Google News highlights. EETimes is a wonderful channel to communicate technical information to the public. I guess GM is squeezed between a rock and a hard place: "criminal activity" vs. "incompetence and neglect". Neither one of them are good.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.