•

US House bill would require national security reviews on connected vehicles from China

https://www.engadget.com/us-house-bill-would-require-national-security-reviews-on-connected-vehicles-from-china-211505179.html

Newly proposed Congressional legislation would require the US to conduct security reviews for connected vehicles built by automakers from China and “other countries of concern.” Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) introduced the bill on Wednesday.

15 comments

Hobbes_Dent

•

How about broad privacy laws in the citizens interests regardless of origin?

xmunk

•

Everyone knows that if a member of the PRC's secret police took a plane to LAX they'd be physically unable to write malware or backdoors. America has a circle of protection cast over it that prevents malicious actors.

Obviously, yea, we should empower an agency to check all software for backdoors... and, ideally, they should be checking for shit from the NSA too.

sxan

•

Software is easy. It's the hardware backdoors that are hard to find, and those have been being built for at least a decade. They were pretty simple to start; I can't imagine what they're capable of hiding in 5nm process chips.

xmunk

•

The hardware backdoors are pretty difficult to find... but I object to your statement that software is easy. The obfuscated C contest is a wonderful demonstration.

sxan

•

You know the best way to analyze a submission to the OCCC? Compile it, then run the result through a disassembler. You get back far more readable code than the source.

But you're right; reading code isn't easy; I meant relatively. If you have government-level resources and can hire a bunch of experienced software developers to review source code, armed with a bunch if static analysis tools (<cough>NSA), you have a decent chance of finding malicious code in software. I know of no similar tools (and the automated software analysis tools are the important factor) for finding backdoors in hardware.

barsquid

•

Just for cars, though, right? If both cars and telecoms aren't allowed to freely sell our data to police how will the government continue violating our 4th Amendment rights?

aniki

•

You expect the neo-liberals to actually do something useful?

ptz

•

Why just China? I don't trust any "connected" product regardless of country of origin.

atx_aquarian

•

I'm not even really sure any of it is really about China. This AP article updating about the progress of the attempt to ban DJI drones suggests Autel as "Best DJI drone alternative". Autel, a Chinese company based in Shenzhen.

Edit: I suppose that could just be the author(s) making an error, but, given the focus on one company in the drone market and a total lack of evidence about security concerns, I just wonder if these aren't all just companies trying to buy market control through lobbying.

paysrenttobirds

•

I'd like to see a law that the owner can always see where data traffic is going from a product and selectively start or stop it whenever they want. Maybe this would make part our all of the product temporarily unusable or throw a flag somewhere else in the system depending on the purpose (as specified in prepurchase literature), but it should be transparently allowed. That's how consent works. I can dream

Rooskie91

•

Excited for this to lead to Chinese EVs that don't steal your data and far outpace US EV sales anyways.

Larry

•

This is what these bozos are doing while the WH sends all my tax dollars to Israel

anticolonialist

•

There are no security concerns, they want to keep China EVs out because of range and their capacity for battery recycling.

angstylittlecatboy

•

There are security concerns. Cars are the worst product category for privacy. The issue is that goes for all cars, not just cars from opposing superpowers.

brianorca

•

TBH, all connected cars have security concerns, but cars built by an opposing superpower would have National Security concerns, too. The two concerns are related, but separate.