US Will Investigate National Security Risks Posed By Chinese-made 'Smart Cars' (nbcnews.com) 68
Citing potential national security risks, the Biden administration says it will investigate Chinese-made "smart cars" that can gather sensitive information about Americans driving them. From a report: The probe could lead to new regulations aimed at preventing China from using sophisticated technology in electric cars and other so-called connected vehicles to track drivers and their personal information. Officials are concerned that features such as driver assistance technology could be used to effectively spy on Americans.
While the action stops short of a ban on Chinese imports, President Joe Biden said he is taking unprecedented steps to safeguard Americans' data. "China is determined to dominate the future of the auto market, including by using unfair practices," Biden said in a statement Thursday. "China's policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security. I'm not going to let that happen on my watch." Biden and other officials noted that China has imposed wide-ranging restrictions on American autos and other foreign vehicles. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said connected cars "are like smart phones on wheels" and pose a serious national security risk.
While the action stops short of a ban on Chinese imports, President Joe Biden said he is taking unprecedented steps to safeguard Americans' data. "China is determined to dominate the future of the auto market, including by using unfair practices," Biden said in a statement Thursday. "China's policies could flood our market with its vehicles, posing risks to our national security. I'm not going to let that happen on my watch." Biden and other officials noted that China has imposed wide-ranging restrictions on American autos and other foreign vehicles. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo said connected cars "are like smart phones on wheels" and pose a serious national security risk.
How about (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
telling.
the personalities that do this kind of stuff are not talking
Re: (Score:2)
We investigate all the companies for doing this shit. It doesn't matter where they are from. US. EU. Fuck I am pretty sure every African software maker is doing this same shit as well.
TBF, the EU has higher standards on this shit than the US does, also it's open and well documented so if they do want to investigate European cars, it's a simple matter. Not that it shouldn't be done, but rather it shouldn't generate any concern.
China is known to play fast and loose with safety standards, not to mention basic honesty about the product, so it's entirely warranted that they'll receive extra attention. With the FAA of recent years, American regulators have hardly covered themselves with glo
Re: (Score:2)
the EU has higher standards on this shit than the US does
That isn't a high bar to clear
Just pass a law (Score:1, Insightful)
I know we can't depend on the MAGA congress to do shit right now, but once the US is over its fascination with right-wing fascism, maybe they can get around to passing a law forbidding the exportation of data outside the US without user consent on an opt-in basis...
Re: (Score:1)
Someday, if you are lucky, you'll realize how retarded that post was and how misguided you were.
Someday, if you are lucky, you'll realize you'e in a cult led by a grifter and you'll suddenly wonder how you could have been so gullible.
Re: (Score:3)
I know we can't depend on the MAGA congress to do shit right now, but once the US is over its fascination with right-wing fascism, maybe they can get around to passing a law forbidding the exportation of data outside the US without user consent on an opt-in basis...
I'm with you. Let's make sure to include a provision that connected vehicles can't export data to the US government either.
I'd also like a provision forbidding implementation of remote kill switches. I don't trust any government or organization to have that ability. The possibilities for abuse are endless.
Ranting and raving aside, there may actually be an issue. So many cars are cameras on wheels. I know companies want those images to train self-driving models but it's also a fabulous way to have Big Brothe
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that we will get together and manage to pass legislation forbidding the collection/distribution of all data pertaining to an individual beyond the personal control of the individual(s) to whom the data pertains.
Merely limiting distribution to the borders of the United States does almost nothing to protect the individuals whose data is being collected, mined, and used to monitor and control those individuals by people and organizations unknown to them. The limitation needs to be a tight circle aroun
Re: Just pass a law (Score:2)
Psssst five eyes. They're not going to stop.
How about .... (Score:5, Informative)
If data is collected in a manner not consistent with the above, the cars will lose any and all DMCA protections forever.
Re:How about .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who or how many here are actually WANTING a fscking "connected" car....?
Hell, I don't like the telemetry many new vehicles today are sending God knows where.....
I certainly don't want a new car that is even MORE connected...?!?!
Why the fuck do I need a car that communicates with any external entity? All my cars to date did just fine not sending data anywhere.
Re: (Score:3)
Because this isn't the local bakery adding sugar to the bread and you deciding to walk out and go to the next one. The discussion is happening for the right to repair, already, but if all automakers start making "connected" cars, what choice do you really have?
Especially with all the laws pushing for EVs conveniently "forcing" automakers to make "smart" cars.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I at least want the choice to be able to disconnect my car, and prevent it from sending out any info.
Are you saying the EVs by default HAVE to
Re: (Score:2)
More general question....
Who or how many here are actually WANTING a fscking "connected" car....?
Hell, I don't like the telemetry many new vehicles today are sending God knows where.....
I certainly don't want a new car that is even MORE connected...?!?!
Why the fuck do I need a car that communicates with any external entity? All my cars to date did just fine not sending data anywhere.
I'd hate to break it to you, people have been for years. OnStar and various other services not to mention any logging/diagnostic put in by the manfuacturer. The only problem is that up until recently it's been expensive to get the full telemetry from cars without forcing the buyer to pay for an expensive data subscription.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Let's say it allows you to make phonecalls. So you know very well it is hearing both sides of all your phonecalls, and this is expected. The question then is not that it transmits this data, but where it is sent subsequently and how it is analyzed. Which quickly becomes untraceable if out-of-country.
Risks (Score:3)
If the cars call home, you risk having personnel movements tracked. Maybe their families. You can get a lot of useful intelligence from that.
But how about the simple ability to mess with or brick the cars? If the market penetration is high enough, you could cause logistics chaos across the country.
a flash mob, of automayhem (Score:2)
We already have phones, but remote disabling?? (Score:2)
But how about the simple ability to mess with or brick the cars? If the market penetration is high enough, you could cause logistics chaos across the country.
Yeah, I am more worried about your second point. A "smart" car is just a phone that never goes into your pocket. Your phone can record your conversations and if it's out of your pocket, capture video. We have an issue with phones of dubious origin already. Sure, a car is worse because the camera can run continuously, but this seems like more of an escalation of an existing problem. Also, I am not sure how many top secret facilities can be seen from a car.
I am much more worried about remote control
Re: We already have phones, but remote disabling?? (Score:2)
One would think they would secure it well, because otherwise it could be detected easily before they are ready to use it, and blow the whole plan.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the cars call home, you risk having personnel movements tracked.
And? No really, And so what? You think BYD has nothing better to do than to check on Baron_Yam and see if he actually went to his home last night or to go out and blackmail you to your wife?
Incidentally I actively downloaded an app for my car that tracks my driving. All of it. Start, end, time, date, distance travelled. It's called a log-book and is required to be kept in some cases. The fact that I get by logging into my car provider's website is neither here nor there.
Let them collect the data, the import
Re: (Score:2)
with 10,000 cars, you could have the cars autodrive to key chokepoints, shut down, and paralyze the whole country
Real reason (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Real reason (Score:5, Informative)
Oh bull shit. China is a real threat to all nations of the world. All connected cars are a real threat to owner privacy including those made in the US. Any data that is relevant to car maintenance and performance should be stored locally and accessed only be mechanics when needed. The owner should have the right to wipe all personal data from a car before any service is performed. Connected cars will ALWAYS have their data abused by manufacturers and governments. The only solution is to get rid of it completely.
Re: (Score:3)
For examples:,
- training of self-driving systems.
- safety features like automated notification of emergency services, with location, upon airbag deployment or detected high g-forces.
- discouraging auto theft
- sharing of road conditions data among all vehicles (e.g. enabling automated setting of adjustable suspension settings)
- optimization of vehicle performance via fleet statistics analysis
- over the air updates of vehicle software and firmware including safety "recall" mandated im
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm imagine if all Chinese cars bricked them selves or decided to go full throttle even if parked in a time of war!
Re: (Score:2)
"Tesla has all of this, and almost all of it is by explicit opt-in by the car owner." - I guarantee that all that data is collected whether you "opt-in" or not. Like I said, connected cars will ALWAYS be abused by manufacturers and governments. Your list of "benefits" can all be achieved without a connected car.
Re: (Score:2)
Best not to guarantee stuff you know shit about. (Is a policy that will serve you well.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, ok, thanks dad.
Re: (Score:1)
End result will be USA sells legacy Detroit-big-3 cars only to itself (and Teslas to everyone). While China sells most of the cars bought by the rest of the world with the exception of a few US vassal (toady) states that adopt US-style rules.
And, yea verily, Methusaleh said (Score:1)
"I'm not going to let that happen on my watch."
Smart. And may you live for another 999 years before your Fitbit reports your death to Beijing.
China is doing what the US isn't bothering do to (Score:5, Insightful)
The US automakers seem to be obsessed with producing $60,000 EV SUV's, when what we really need for mass EV adoption is a $25,000 EV compact with decent range.
Meanwhile, BYD in China has made a car called the Seagull that costs around the equivalent of $16,000 US, and has a range of almost 200 miles. If I was in the Biden administration, I'd be "afraid" of this vehicle as well. Not because it's going to be stealing US trade secrets, but it has the ability to disrupt US auto production in a way that rivals how Japanese and German car imports disputed the US automakers in the 1970's.
Sure, you can say that "US buyers don't want small cars" now, but if gas prices go back up over $4.50 a gallon again, that tune could change quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Distances driven are just larger in North America. 200 miles won't cut it.
200 miles is far more than you should be driving in any one sitting, and more than the distance between superchargers. 200 miles will cut it. In fact I think we should force all cars to be limited to 200 miles just to get dodgy drowsy unalert tired drivers off the fucking road.
Not everyone is doing a cannonball run. 99% of people's cars will never be driven 200miles in one go. Yes including in the USA.
Re:China is doing what the US isn't bothering do t (Score:4, Informative)
The fact that you don't see a need for more than 200 miles in one go doesn't mean that there aren't quite a few other people with that need. Although rest breaks are useful when driving long distances, forcing those breaks to meet a charging schedule and duration eliminates a lot of flexibility in route planning and execution.
I have to drive 200 miles round trip just to get to the airport and back, and a range of 200 miles would leave me with no excess capacity to deal with not-infrequent modifications to that round trip. When I take my kid to/from college I have to drive 200 miles just to get there, and I then can let my kid drive the 200 miles back, without having to wait around while my car charges up. Same thing is true when I'm on long trips with my wife - we alternate driving, giving both of us a nice rest and making sure we cover lots of ground when we need to do so. It takes over 6 hours of driving for me to just get to the other side of the state that I live in, which I do multiple times per year.
So many people assume that their personal knowledge and experience subsumes other people needs without really crunching any data at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So many people assume that their personal knowledge and experience subsumes other people needs without really crunching any data at all.
Assuming ~100% replacement of anything is massively simplistic - there's still people riding horses for transpor
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you don't see a need for more than 200 miles in one go doesn't mean that there aren't quite a few other people with that need.
You misread my post, or purposefully ignored it to push your dishonest discussion. I didn't fail to see a need for more than 200 miles in one go. In fact I specifically addressed that there are 1% of people who will need this, and for those 1% of people they will have no problem stopping for a charge on the way.
By the way, between you posting this and me replying to you I drove over 190miles in one trip with my EV. It was truly a calamity that I stopped for *checks app* 13minutes to take a piss break and bu
Re: (Score:2)
You misread my post, or purposefully ignored it to push your dishonest discussion. I didn't fail to see a need for more than 200 miles in one go. In fact I specifically addressed that there are 1% of people who will need this, and for those 1% of people they will have no problem stopping for a charge on the way.
I have a different point of view than you; I'm not trying to engage in a "dishonest discussion." I'm currently shopping for a new vehicle, and so I'm very engaged in analyzing my options and selecting something that will meet my needs for the next 20 years, the same as I did for the vehicle I'm replacing (that is now 24 years old). I think your estimate of 99% of people being happy with a 200 miles at a go drive capability is off by a bit, but I don't know by how much. I do know it doesn't apply to me, n
Re: (Score:2)
That's not even 3 hours driving at highway speeds (it's 70mph around me)
200 miles is nothing for a single drive.
Re: (Score:2)
And at motorway speeds - 70mph in the UK or 130kph in the EU - the effective range of an EV is lower than the manufacturer-quoted range.
Add in that the quoted range is always for 100% battery but fast-charge times quoted are only to 80%.
If EV makers would quote "road trip" stats - range at 70mph/130kmh on 80% charge - then I'd be able to evaluate their offerings based on my use case, in the same way that I can for ICE vehicles (which have mpg at various speeds quoted together with fuel tank size.)
That they
Re: China is doing what the US isn't bothering do (Score:2)
In the cold that 200 miles is 120 miles, and it becomes a problem. Cars have to be suitable all year round, in unexpected cold snaps brought on by AGW, etc. I still don't get why batteries can't be insulated and then cooled with a larger system than most EVs have... Bring back the grill!
Re: (Score:2)
Come back to me when I can charge my car at my apartment. That is far more concerning than range.
Re: (Score:2)
They are afraid of good value Chinese cars. Just like when Japan first entered the market, and then Korea. This time they can say national security as the excuse, to avoid having to admit they want special restrictions on Chinese imports to help domestic automakers compete.
It's the same as the telecoms stuff. Missed the boat on 5G, so find an excuse to rip it all out at taxpayer's expense and replace it with years late domestic stuff.
That said, there is some truth about the small cars thing, because the US
Re: (Score:1)
Seagull was just launched in Brazil! Massive selling in the firsts days...
Because, damnit! (Score:2)
We should be the ones spying on our own citizens.
Mandated FOSS instead (Score:2)
As an alternative to the ban, they should require the use of free and open-source software. Openly available source code can be reviewed and audited by anyone, including the US government and its citizens. This could reduces the likelihood of hidden backdoors or malicious code that could be exploited for espionage purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good idea in general.
It doesn't solve the problem of spyware. Just because you can see that it phones home and how exactly it does it, doesn't mean it stops doing it. (And patching that out might violate the DMCA which, thanks to the WTO's lobbying, applies not only to John Deere tractors.)
But that's a red herring anyway. The problem here is that PRISM doesn't apply to Chinese servers. The possibility of the cars not spying on you is the risk to national security.
Re: (Score:2)
With foss, it's not just a matter of detecting that the car is phoning home, it's possible to examine the code and see what's going on and why. And it is not about being able to patch - whether DMCA is applicable or not - it serves as a deterrent. I don't think they'd take that risk given what's at stake. We're talking about a potential Chinese car manufacturer, not some widget maker. The loss of business if a case of espionage were discovered would be enormous.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that. A lot of cars are spying on their users and they still sell well.
Re: Mandated FOSS instead (Score:2)
This is why you need to use a modern Free Software license like GPLv3, with an anti-tivoization clause. Then you can not only see the code (as in open source) but you can actually USE it as well. That is, a third party could provide alternate firmware which lacks the spyware.
Should US proxy all smart car connections? (Score:2)
So I drive a Russian car in US that connects to its Russian manufacturer for telemetry, updates and possibly remote control.
Or I drive a Chinese car in Israel.
Should US and all other countries firewall the connections from the cars to the OEM-s?
To be able to see the telemetry, block potential malicious updates, cut them off in case of problems?
I cannot see why the current situation is OK in any way.
"The cars driving on our roads are connected to their manufacturers, which may be under the control of enemy g
Meanwhile Apple ends its EV project (Score:2)
US Will Investigate National Security Risks Posed (Score:2)
This regulation brought to you by GM... (Score:2)
and more (Score:2)
car could be stuffed with microphones and cameras and transmit all this info to the chinese directly.
once a doubt is raised the only way out is to ban them altogether.
What they really mean (Score:2)
Meaning: We don't want our political enemy using the same spyware we use.
China will take market-share from US car manufacturers. Or, they could make better cars, like Japan and Germany did.