Hacker News

points by advisedwang 13 hours ago | 0 comments

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 12 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 12 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 10 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 12 hours ago

China isn't threatening to invade European countries.

[–] gman83 12 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 12 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 12 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 12 hours ago

Let me Google that for you

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

[–] petcat 12 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 10 hours ago

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

[–] culi 11 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 11 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 9 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

[–] Firaxus 9 hours ago

How does encouraging Germany to be self sufficient and maintain their own energy generation capabilities with nuclear power result in them being the USA’s puppy?

I understand diversification to avoid over reliance, but isn’t that exactly what happened with over reliance on Russian energy sources? To Ukraine and Europe as a whole’s detriment?

[–] drnick1 12 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 10 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 12 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 10 hours ago

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

[–] lawn 12 hours ago

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

[–] wil421 12 hours ago

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

[–] Danox 12 hours ago

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

[–] wil421 10 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 11 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 9 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 12 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 12 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 10 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 12 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 12 hours ago

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

[–] DoneWithAllThat 10 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.