this post was submitted on 29 Feb 2024
100 points (93.9% liked)

Technology

58173 readers
5364 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Biden Calls Chinese Electric Vehicles a Security Threat::The president ordered an investigation into auto technology that could track U.S. drivers, part of a broader effort to stop E.V. and other smart-car imports from China.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (6 children)

China is the largest producer of EVs in the world by far (the next country on the list, Germany doesn't even come close). In fact, China produces more EVs than the next 4 top producers combined.

The US is running scared because there is absolutely no way they can compete, unless they severely handicap the competition.

So, instead of free competition in Western markets, we have coddled American companies that are "too big to fail" that will continue producing obsolete technologies. If we haven't already, we'll start to see Boeing's product issues in American cars.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Administration officials noted that American auto manufacturers that sold vehicles to customers in China were essentially forced by Chinese officials to use Chinese software in their vehicles.

I do question the amount of lifting the word essentially is doing in the above snippet, but that does sound like grounds to limit the inverse for Chinese imports

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 10 points 6 months ago

No need to question it. Western auto companies in China aren't independent. They're nearly always joint 50/50 ventures with Chinese auto companies and are under Chinese government regulation. I know for a fact that at least one American car company has the infotainment software for China written in China while all other regions use completely different software, written in NA.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is one of the reasons the US is looking to restrict Chinese EV imports. And to be clear, they’re so cheap because the CCP is subsidizing the entire Chinese EV industry, since they want to entirely own the market. But that’s not all.

China, as you may know, has a lot of serious problems around privacy and surveillance. More pointedly: it’s a surveillance state. It’s entirely possible that Chinese EVs could be sending back tons of data to servers in China. That data could be related to users and passengers… but it could also be area surveillance and data gathering (i.e. effectively employing multiple cars in a particular area as a distributed integrated sensor system), because modern cars have a shitload of cameras and microphones in them these days. I would be extremely unsurprised if the CCP was leveraging EV data gathering as an intelligence source. Think about it: they could give/sell near-realtime information to anyone they feel like. The CCP themselves is interested, I’m sure, in what’s going on in Taipei right now. They might sell South Korean data to North Korea. They might sell Ukrainian or Moldovan or Latvian or Finnish data to Russia. Those states might then turn around and use that data to try to destabilize the specified target countries, or even to assist with an invasion.

There are a LOT of reasons why letting the CCP own a vast majority of global EV production is a bad idea.

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world -1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Remember when the Patriot Act was a thing?

Surveillance of your citizens isn't a CCP only thing.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah. I know. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about this.

Whataboutism isn’t going to change what I said, or how accurate what I said is.

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It's not whataboutism, it's hypocrisy.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It’s really not, and it’s also not really apples to apples.

The Patriot Act, and the level of surveillance it enabled and continues to enable, is absolutely bad, and I am absolutely not defending it.

But the CCP comprehensively surveils its citizenry in ways that would appall people born and raised in the west - think “you were having a bad day last week and you yelled at a rude store clerk, and a camera caught that and flagged it for a party official to review, so now your metro card won’t take you anywhere besides work and home”. That’s a level of granular surveillance and control that’s commonplace in China, and would be absolutely unheard of in a non-authoritarian state.

To get back to the main points I am expressing here:

  • the CCP is an authoritarian surveillance state
  • companies in mainland China are forced, as a matter of policy, to give the CCP an extreme level of access to basically all of their data (incidentally, this is one of the main reasons the biotech company I work at bailed on China altogether in the last couple years, despite the huge patient demographics we could address there, because their surveillance laws directly collide with a ton of western medical privacy laws)
  • the CCP is a geopolitical adversary to much of the west at this point, and is becoming more adversarial
  • the CCP has an established pattern and practice of leveraging industrial espionage and reverse engineering to further their own national interests. There are numerous significant examples of this.

Thus, it stands to reason that the CCP, which is footing the bill for a meaningful percentage of their auto industry’s EV development costs, could very plausibly make “throw tons of sensors in there and pipe the data to us” a condition of that assistance.

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world -5 points 6 months ago

That example you gave about yelling at a store clerk led to a man being murdered by the police in America (George Floyd).

[–] Alpha71@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but 80% are super cheap crap.

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Leave that to the customer to decide. Or is that not the point of the free market?

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Not when it comes to things that will kill people.

"Super cheap crap" in this case could lead to the steering binding up and making a car drive into a crowd of people.

The car market is far from free and is probably one of the most regulated markets in the US. Introducing "free market" now to it would be quite catastrophic.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

They still wouldn't be able to sell anything that doesn't meet the standards in place, so I really don't get your comment.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The government can't inspect 100% of every vehicle. Chinesium crap is notorious for swapping out parts. If the company is based in the US or has significant ownership/operations in the USA then you can take actions against the company...

A Chinese company has no care in the world about US operations. They'll just change name and peddle it under a new name. (see dropshipping problems we have now on all the major e-tail platforms).

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Curious, are planes manufactured by Boeing being considered in your comparison of Chinese made vs US made products?

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 3 points 6 months ago

Well that's a good question... I would normally say no... But a little googling brings up results like

https://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/boeing-expands-chinese-parts-factory-for-second-time
https://interestingengineering.com/culture/boeing-company-opens-new-chinese-factory-amid-us-chinese-trade-war

and

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-777x-parts-manufacture-site/

According to the Global Times, over 10,000 Boeing aircraft have parts made in China.

And then you look at the problems Boeing have recently faced... And you have to wonder... newer manufacturing facilities in China... and now we're seeing an uptick in problems at Boeing. Definitely a hell of a coincidence, but ultimately hard to tie them together as a causal relationship.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

China is the largest producer of EVs in the world by far (the next country on the list, Germany doesn't even come close). In fact, China produces more EVs than the next 4 top producers combined.

Whenever I see anyone comparing |absolute| values of anything between China and other countries, I just automatically assume they aren't thinking very hard. You realize it's a country of a billion and a half people right?

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Okay so you're saying the US doesn't stand a chance.

India has a billion and a half people too by the way. Where are India's EVs?

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Okay so you're saying the US doesn't stand a chance.

Doesn't stand a chance at what? Producing more cars than an industrialized country with 4x as many people? Yes I am. Would you say Canada "stands a chance" in that sense compared to the US?

The better question is: what benefit is a country getting for the stuff it makes and sells. GDP per capita is a useful measure because in theory it means every person is getting a larger slice of the country's productive economic activity. Obviously reality is a lot more complex than that, but it's certainly not helpful to be even more reductive and just ignore the population factor entirely.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 3 points 6 months ago

I'm not sure OP is talking about the net distribution of profit though, they're talking about gross market output. China can flood the EV market with cheap commodities, that's bad news for American manufacturers because -as op said- they can't compete. A lot of that is related to population, but that's kind of irrelevant to the point op is making.

[–] tigerjerusalem@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world -3 points 6 months ago

Can't wait for sanctions against India, am I right?

[–] bladerunnerspider@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Tell me you only read the headline

[–] Altofaltception@lemmy.world -2 points 6 months ago

Oh I read the article and found most of it to be rehashed arguments about Huawei.