I've got a better idea: ban connected vehicles, completely. All it has to do is move you from a -> b. Why the fuck do you need a cloud connection?
It's a threat to our economy, security, and continuity of business in the unlikely but unfortunate event of a kinetic attack on the US mainland or one of it's territories.
Aside from tonnes of possible security vulnerabilities, I do see some upsides:
The interconnceted-ness could make perfect sense when it comes to collision prevention. If there is a collision up further ahead, this information can be quickly propagated between nearby cars to warn and/or automatically slow down. I do not know if this is already in use or if it was just one of those possible future scenarios with 5G. Would also make sense if ambulances could make their presence known to drivers much earlier so they can get out of the way.
That's on me for setting the ball too low.
Why do you need a cloud connection for two vehicles 10ft feet apart to exchange data?
This sounds like more of a use case for short range communications, not so much internet connectivity. Tying this tech to the internet makes it less effective as it stops working when you go out of range. And a car's stopping distance is far outranged by what short range comms is capable of.
> it was just one of those possible future scenarios with 5G
The problem is that "increased speed" was also "one of those possible future scenarios with 5G". (And with 4G FWIW)
Because people want features.
Semi-playing devil's advocate since my ideal car is a very simple one. But I can see why the majority of people want various gizmos and doodads in their cars, whether it be a Spotify app or FSD.
> Why the fuck do you need a cloud connection?
So we can show you ads, depending on your car position. /s
Also it is much easier for law enforcement to locate you.
This is just a ploy to stop the onslaught of Chinese EVs from entering the US market. Doing Tesla, Ford, GM, Volkwagon, Toyota a favor but a disservice to consumers.
There are three goals from this strategy. 1) Protect domestic electric car companies. (100% tariffs is an example of same) 2) Protect us consumers privacy from a country that believes privacy is for the wicked. 3) Protect national security by preventing deployment of technology controlled by an adversarial state.
I acknowledge that the move hinders a transition to electric vehicles and a greening of the grid. It’s a violation of free market principles in that a better product is available for cheaper and this prevents the best and cheapest electric cars from making it to the US market.
However, the other two goals are also legitimate. China does have a terrible track record for privacy. And running millions of computers on wheels fully controlled by an adversarial state (as is required under Chinese law) is bad strategy.
If privacy is important, people will not buy Chinese cars. Free market.
If safety is important, people will not buy unsafe cars. Free market.
We should just get rid of safety regulations and let the free market decide if they want to pay for addons like seat belts or air bags.
Privacy isn’t on the same spectrum as things that can kill you in an instant.
There is a risk level for each individual event.
You can regulate to the point where no one is allowed to do anything or buy anything because it can kill you. But that’s not the world we live in.
Having regulation that US data can’t leave US soil would be better than a complete ban.
I assume this is meant to ban PRC cars from even entering US soil, i.e. tariffs won't stop Chinese cars from crossing Mexican border. Meant to make PRC cars not viable in North America.
It’s election season. Gotta get union votes in swing states.
Next step, ban offshoring, lets end globalisation, one never knows which state might be working for their own purposes, with agents on service delivery companies.
You're in luck, globalization is already ending thanks to the American general disinterest in patrolling global shipping lanes + the shale revolution.
Of course, one thing leads to the other.
> general disinterest
I think you meant to use the word “inability”.
The US 'could' waste trillions waging war against the Houthis in their mountain hideouts.
Or they could just let Europe-Asia trade get more expensive.
I'd say, be careful about what you wish for. We probably don't want to end globalization right now, or in the near term.
We are already going that way, and everyone voting right as protest isn't helping.
The economic nationalism of the Democratic party (though there's plenty of support for this from the Republicans too) is reaching a new sort of crescendo in recent years. That's par for the course. What isn't and shouldn't be is that these same tendencies have moved in the direction of indirectly controlling access to information platforms and means of expressing oneself. Banning TikTok for example, done under the guise of surveillance fears and the absurd boogeyman of "misinformation" takes circumventions of free speech protection to new levels.
> The Biden administration has raised serious concerns about the collection of data by Chinese companies
What about the collection of data by US companies that later sell to anyone that pays (including Chinese companies and various governments)?
And what they suspect China will do with the data is exactly same as what they'll do.
Best for big countries to focus on internal market which China is already doing.
It's wonderful to witness that when china starts winning the game which west plays, they try to shut it down. European countries want to ban Chinese EV. Americans want to ban china from software and chip business entirely.
Yes, this should also be illegal. Not really a reason not to go forward with the proposed ban, though.
We should push for a blanket ban on non-consensual data collection regardless of manufacturer, as well as for changing the terms of service after the sale (such as the introduction of mandatory data collection after you already purchased the vehicle - or any other product for that matter). How / where do we send this feedback to?
Acceptance of data collection should have very high standards. Like written signature after recording of going over all of the terms read out loud. This is only way to be sufficiently sure that consent is freely given.
Can't sell it if they already have it on tap.
Then, can't manipulate it if they already have the pure data.
There's a difference between your girlfriend's dad knowing you smoke weed, and the cops knowing you smoke weed.
I have serious concerns about this as well. Now is the time for a very strong national consumer data protection law. The car companies have demonstrated their unwillingness to implement adequate data privacy protections on their own. Time to require that protection with law.
What about it?
Look, it’s the whataboutism poster in every China vs US thread. He can’t win an argument so he simply posts a link to the whataboutism article on Wikipedia.
Hypocrisy, fairness, logic are now reduced whataboutism wiki link.
Not sure highlighting hypocrisy is whataboutism.
In 'highlighting hypocrisy' you make the incredible deduction that the US work to spy but not be spied upon.
Go, Yankees!
Chinese authorities should be thinking: never stop your enemies when they are hurting themselves. The ex leader of the "free world" can't win anymore?
China I’m sure would much prefer to have access to the US car market.
Yes, exactly. The same way the US wanted and got access to eastern Europe/ex-soviet market.