Hacker News

points by petcat 13 hours ago | 0 comments

USA bans the onboard Chinese automotive software for national security reasons, effectively banning Chinese cars.

For all the talk about data and technology sovereignty in Europe about USA tech, you would think they would take that more seriously too. Instead Europe is flooded with underpriced Chinese cars that they have no control over.

[–] advisedwang 13 hours ago

Are there actual national security concerns though? Or is that just an excuse for protectionism? I suspect the latter, and in europe politicians may make the calculation that cheap cars > car manufaturing jobs.

[–] jerf 13 hours ago

Yes, there are huge national security concerns when everybody's cars are always on the network and all fly-by-wire. It would be trivial for anyone who writes the software for these things to include logic or network bombs in them that would enable a catastrophic strike on a country or the rest of the world. Cars being on the network all the time is really a terrifically stupid idea.

Careful readers may note the complete lack of the word "China" in the previous paragraph. But, yes, technically it is even that much more dangerous to have a whole bunch of potentially-hackable robots roaming up and down all your transportation corridors that were also created by your major economic and military rival.

But I don't even like it when it isn't created by your rival, though, because there's no guarantee that your rival can't hack anybody's software. I fear the day when some significant fraction of cars on the road are given instructions to floor the pedal and then do a hard turn to the left 10 seconds later. (Or the right for countries where that is the "turn into oncoming traffic" direction.)

[–] LogicFailsMe 13 hours ago

So apparently Charlize Theron hacking self-driving cars for the "make it rain" one great scene in an installment of the Fast and The Furious franchise was not enough incentive for our short term gains corporate overlords to do anything about it. So apparently it takes your catastrophic strike(tm) to get the job done much like it took 9/11 to justify the price of reinforcing cockpit doors.

I do not like this. But it seems to be how it works here.

[–] tarpitt 11 hours ago

They could open-source all of the car software/firmware and eliminate this regulation issue entirelty

[–] zardo 12 hours ago

As they say, safety regulations are written in blood.

[–] petcat 13 hours ago

Ask Europe if they think there are "actual national security concerns" about them being so heavily reliant on USA tech companies and services.

[–] Munksgaard 13 hours ago

China isn't threatening to invade European countries.

[–] gman83 13 hours ago

They're just providing Russia with all the components they need to build as many drones and rockets as they need to keep striking striking Europe.

[–] pbhjpbhj 13 hours ago

Whilst USA provides the funding for Russia to buy weapons in dollars.

Can you source your statement that China is supplying drone components to Russia?

[–] scottyah 13 hours ago

It is common knowledge, just google it and whichever new site you trust to skip the "Omg you trust news site X?" step

[–] noduerme 13 hours ago

Let me Google that for you

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2026/09/06/china-secr...

[–] petcat 13 hours ago

Europe and Germany invested heavily in the Nordstream pipelines despite USA repeatedly warning them that Russia would weaponize energy dependence against them [1]. Germany even continued shuttering their nuclear plants after Crimea because they loved the cheap gas.

The point is, Europe's judgement cannot be trusted. They have allowed themselves to become dependent on very risky globalized sources despite decades of warnings.

[1] https://2021-2025.state.gov/nord-stream-2-and-potential-sanc...

[–] MaxHoppersGhost 11 hours ago

I'd love to see the math on whether the EU basically funded the Russian's war on Ukraine via Nordstream.

[–] culi 12 hours ago

This is ridiculous comment. Europe invested in a partnership with Russia because they didn't want the US to continue to dominate them economically, especially when it comes to energy. Now they've been cut off from both Russian oil and West Asian oil and the result is a Europe that is powerless to stand up against the US.

The EU is stuck choosing which of their two masters they're stuck with until they switch to renewables

[–] petcat 12 hours ago

Obama and Merkel held a joint press conference in 2014 where Obama publicly warned about Germany's energy dependence on Russia and Merkel assured everyone that Germany had a "10 to 15 year plan" [1] and then proceeded to continue shutting down its nuclear plants anyway.

Three years later US Energy Secretary Rick Perry went to Poland and gave another speech imploring Germany not to shutter their nuclear plants.

Then Germany celebrated the closing of the last plant with festivities at the Brandenberg Gate and the very next year Russia invaded Ukraine.

I know it's easy to blame everything on some external factor, but sometimes Europe's problems really are simply because they make very bad decisions entirely on their own.

[1] https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/0...

[–] culi 10 hours ago

You're not listening. The US wants Germany to be its puppy. If Germany is able to get energy from Russia and the Middle East, then that can't happen.

OF COURSE the United States is gonna "warn" them. They have a massive geopolitical interest in making them dependent.

Germany is right to diversify its dependencies while it switches to renewables. All of EU should've done the same. Depending on the US is a massive threat to their sovereignty

[–] drnick1 13 hours ago

This. There are no words to describe how asinine Europe's (and in particular Germany's) energy policy is. And it's all self inflicted for largely ideological reasons.

[–] reeredfdfdf 11 hours ago

Nordics do have a decent energy policy, mostly covered by nuclear, wind and hydro. To us German fear of nuclear has always seen highly irrational.

[–] Markoff 13 hours ago

and yet Russia didn't weaponize nordstream, meanwhile our "ally" Ukraine destroyed it for us and people still continue pumping there dozens of billions EUR on prolonging endless war

Russia would happily supply cheap gas, it is self imposed EU resrictions together with green deal shooting themselves in their own foot, same thing with EU airlines taking detour to avoid russian airspace while Chinese airlines happily save kerosene flying through RU airspace

[–] Markoff 11 hours ago

your downvotes won't change a reality, but enjoy it if it makes you happy LOL

[–] lawn 13 hours ago

At this point US is a bigger security concern than China.

[–] wil421 13 hours ago

Who do you think is building weapons, parts, and sharing tech with Russia to use on Ukraine?

[–] Danox 13 hours ago

Is America buying Russian diesel? How’s that working out?

[–] wil421 11 hours ago

How much gas and oil has Europe purchased from Russia since the start of the war?

[–] TMWNN 11 hours ago

... while Europe did not allow the Ukraine War to interrupt its longstanding massive purchase contracts for gas from Russia.

The United States is, contrary to what many subreddits' denizens seem to believe, not actually at war with Russia. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Anything the US does, or does not, regarding sanctions on Russia is up to the US to decide.

[–] culi 12 hours ago

Chinese parts have been found in equal parts on both the Russian and the Ukrainian side.

[–] stickfigure 11 hours ago

That still makes them complicit in arming Russia. There is no "it's ok to be neutral and arm both sides" here.

[–] culi 10 hours ago

Well officially they are not neutral. They explicitly ban trading with Russia. They don't sell any actual military products and have strict controls on dual-use products.

Ukraine actually uses Chinese parts much more heavily because its easier for them to get it through the EU. Also, US microchips are routinely found in Russian weaponry. 75% of all its jamming devices come from the US

https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-foreign-parts-russia...

It's not easy to paint China on one side or another. It's the same in West Asia. People often try to associate China with Iran but historically they have certainly not been allies. Many of the Saudi Arabian drones China has downed have been Chinese drones and the vast majority of Iran's assets that are locked up due to sanctions are actually currently held in China. China is holding them in compliance with sanctions.

At the same time, they've (rightfully) denounced Trump's illegal retreat from the JCPOA and the additional (illegal) sanctions those have triggered against Iran.

[–] Markoff 13 hours ago

US, China, Israel? I am sure many companies will happily earn money supplying both sides while those idiots are figthting each other in endless war, there is only one winner in this war - military industrial complex.

[–] tocs3 13 hours ago

I think there are legitimate safety and national security concerns. I also think restrictions are imposed for protectionism / political / monetary reasons. We are living in a world where the people making the decisions wait until there is enough personal gain to act in one direction or another.

[–] radley 11 hours ago

> people making the decisions wait until there is enough personal gain to act in one direction or another.

Or just Yojimbo it.

[–] tocs3 8 hours ago

I would like to do without the violence.

[–] xnx 13 hours ago

There are ways it could be handled. Waymo imports Chinese made Zeekr vans, but Waymo probably replaces all onboard software and hardware.

[–] geye1234 13 hours ago

Just like with the data center 'debate', it's best to assume both sides are just churning out propaganda.

[–] DoneWithAllThat 11 hours ago

Yes! This seems like such a patently obvious thing that it’s amazing it needs to be said. Yes! There are national security concerns with China having detailed transportation data from other countries! Good god I feel like I’m taking crazy pills that I have to type this.

[–] LunaSea 13 hours ago

Europe doesn't ban American on-board software so why would they ban Chinese ones?

[–] scottyah 12 hours ago

Europe "bans" tons of American software, though for now they just use it as their main revenue source.

https://www.xtb.com/int/market-analysis/news-and-research/eu...

[–] LunaSea 12 hours ago

Fines are not bans. American software companies are welcome to respect the law any time now. For a US reference, see the recent Meta fines in New Mexico.

[–] scottyah 12 hours ago

That's why ban was in quotes. They say it's not allowed, but they would rather take money than disallow the software. It's just how they choose to enforce their laws.

USA doesn't want the software present in Chinese cars (or things like TikTok and networking infra) and "bans"/makes it illegal. Instead of fining the Chinese companies repeatedly, they block it. Perhaps because there are viable alternatives within the country.

[–] LunaSea 8 hours ago

So why did the US not ban Meta after Cambridge Analytica scandal or Alphabet after the Google Adx and DV360 preferential treatment scandal?

Also most IoT in the US runs Chinese software and I'm not seeing ban for those.

[–] lukan 13 hours ago

There are limits in place and about to be tightened, but I assume the bigger worry are the european car manufacturers.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/oct/12/eu-deal-...

And personally I trust a Tesla as much as chinese car. But a VW one only slightly more.

[–] Grombobulous 2 hours ago

For everything that actually matters about owning a car, things like service network, whether the brand will exist in 20-30 years, parts availability, crash safety, driving characteristics and comfort, manufacturing quality, I would trust VW about 5x more than Tesla or any Chinese brand.

VW is nowhere near the top of my trustworthy brands list but they’re still in the “massive sales volume legacy automotive group” category where they generally know what they’re doing and have the fundamentals of their business in order.

If you want to really get me going about legacy automakers that are a safe buy we can talk about Toyota.

[–] asveikau 13 hours ago

It's not for national security. It's to protect Detroit.

Our domestic industry should be laser focused on being more competitive with Chinese vehicles, but if they could do relatively little R&D and keep the status quo going at high costs to the consumer, they'll do it.

[–] Grombobulous 1 hour ago

Of course, the obvious best way to protect Detroit was to continue the EV rebate program.

Ford, GM, and Stellantis were dumping money into EV development. Now they’re not.

The rebates directly favored domestically produced batteries (although the leasing loophole was unfortunate).

I’m really not sure why the US government didn’t continue that same policy, and beyond that I’m really not sure why they didn’t follow the Japanese car playbook with China and go harder on domestic employment/value capture carrots and sticks.

The result of Japanese cars coming to America is that Japanese cars are designed and built in America. The thing that foreign competitors can never change is that Americans often buy vastly different cars than other regions of the globe.

Let China into Europe, let China into the USA…but make them play on your playing field. Make them hire engineers and build factories in your region. Make them deploy the automotive connected services software servers in domestic data centers.

The US already has dealer franchise laws that keep a huge chunk of the profits from car sales and service away from the manufacturers. Let China sell their cars in the US, AutoNation is going to take all the money from the sale anyway.

[–] ctmlr 12 hours ago

If only we took data privacy laws seriously here then we wouldn't be in such a predicament, just more consequences of our protectionist economy.

[–] whatshisface 13 hours ago

"He who loves the profit of the tyrant must hate the Commonwealth, and he who loves the Commonwealth must hate the profit of tyranny, for what profits the sovereign does not always profit the Commonwealth." - paraphrased from the anti-Machiavel.

That's about the level of sovereignty expressed in product-by-product donor protection.

[–] drnick1 13 hours ago

> USA bans the onboard Chinese automotive software for national security reasons, effectively banning Chinese cars.

And that is perfectly reasonable. I go further and disable the cellular modem even in a domestically made car.

[–] mmooss 12 hours ago

IIRC, the US administration is claiming that building a ballroom and an arch are needed for national security.

[–] joe_the_user 13 hours ago

The US could provide a means for importing cars with electronic risks - have the electronic "brain" be made in the US and have it plug into a "dumb" (or well-defined interface) body.