Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Transportation China

Carmakers Rush To Remove Chinese Code Under New US Rules (msn.com) 141

Posted by EditorDavid from the very-connected-cars dept.
"How Chinese is your car?" asks the Wall Street Journal. "Automakers are racing to work it out." Modern cars are packed with internet-connected widgets, many of them containing Chinese technology. Now, the car industry is scrambling to root out that tech ahead of a looming deadline, a test case for America's ability to decouple from Chinese supply chains. New U.S. rules will soon ban Chinese software in vehicle systems that connect to the cloud, part of an effort to prevent cameras, microphones and GPS tracking in cars from being exploited by foreign adversaries.

The move is "one of the most consequential and complex auto regulations in decades," according to Hilary Cain, head of policy at trade group the Alliance for Automotive Innovation. "It requires a deep examination of supply chains and aggressive compliance timelines."

Carmakers will need to attest to the U.S. government that, as of March 17, core elements of their products don't contain code that was written in China or by a Chinese company. The rule also covers software for advanced autonomous driving and will be extended to connectivity hardware starting in 2029. Connected cars made by Chinese or China-controlled companies are also banned, wherever their software comes from...

The Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, which introduced the connected-vehicle rule, is also allowing the use of Chinese code that is transferred to a non-Chinese entity before March 17. That carve-out has sparked a rush of corporate restructuring, according to Matt Wyckhouse, chief executive of cybersecurity firm Finite State. Global suppliers are relocating China-based software teams, while Chinese companies are seeking new owners for operations in the West.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the article.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Carmakers Rush To Remove Chinese Code Under New US Rules More

Carmakers Rush To Remove Chinese Code Under New US Rules

Comments Filter:

  • Canâ(TM)t the Chinese just buy all the info a (Score:3)

    by fortfive ( 1582005 ) on Sunday February 08, 2026 @11:07PM (#65976862)

    Maybe this is less about security and more about who gets paid?

  • Europeans should check how American are their cars (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 08, 2026 @11:13PM (#65976874)

    Right? Make sure that there's no American code. Make sure everything is open source if used. After all it seems that all the cars that have stopped working so far have been American cars, that have been remotely disabled, etc.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Right? Make sure that there's no American code. Make sure everything is open source if used. After all it seems that all the cars that have stopped working so far have been American cars, that have been remotely disabled, etc.

      LOL. What would be the point? How many Americans cars do you think they buy now?

    • The trumpistani cars that sell in Europe are either cheap, EU made utilitarian models or individual imports of "muscle car" monstrocities for the occasional connoisseur of stupid waste.

      Why would you buy junk that breaks often, guzzles gas and destroys the environment when you can actually have a much nicer European, Japanese or Korean car?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Edmundo ( 10503267 )
        Americans have obviously decided not to pursue quality any more. The rest of us world citizens will be driving high spec BYD and Xiaomi vehicles while you sputter along in Trump Trabants.

      • The argument of the AC is code sharing. For example, the Stellantis group might reuse parts of their code between Jeep and Fiat. If a mole, a suitable EO from a stakeholder government (the USA or Italy in this example), or an external bad actor, get remote access to the cars of one brand through a rootkit or a vulnerability, they could also simultaneously gain access to other other brands.

  • Plenty Would Take that Trade-Off . . . . (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kunedog ( 1033226 ) on Sunday February 08, 2026 @11:17PM (#65976878)

    New U.S. rules will soon ban Chinese software in vehicle systems that connect to the cloud

    "Cool, disconnect my car completely then."

    . . . but of course, this decision will be made by the real owners of the car, not the guy who merely "bought" it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      I had to disassemble dash to get to a data module to remove cell modem. Even then, I had to do a lot of research to make sure I wouldn't lose too much functionality, because car manufacturers disable features out of spite. In my case if the car does not connect for 3 months they disable KEY FOB REMOTE START. Toyota are fucking cunts, no other way to say that.

      • It's not Toyota, it's everyone. Hell we just ran a story here a few weeks ago about Porches in Russia refusing to start due to communication issues. Many car vendors implemented remote key switches. Customers kept asking for them. Well not directly, but customers wanted a car that was more theft proof.

  • Connected cars are a plauge (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sinij ( 911942 ) on Sunday February 08, 2026 @11:18PM (#65976880)
    I can understand self-driving cars needing to be connected, but for all other cases it is simple greed and laziness. Greed is because they want to nickle and dime you with subscriptions and then sell your data on top of that. Laziness is because most automotive things can be made work without connection, but you can't release and patch later unless you can push that remotely.

    • Yes greed and lazyness. Certainly no one every asked for connected features in a car. *Opens app hits the pre-heat cabin button because it's -5 out right now.* Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to get a coffee and stand in the window while I watch my neighbours scrape ice from their windshields in the dark.

      Yeah it is lazyness, but it's mine. Some of us prefer to buy cars with lazy remote features like this. The kind that can tell me when it's full so I don't need to pay charger blocking fees, the kind which

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        You don't understand the cost of this convenience. The cost of potential security compromise, because automotive suppliers don't get IT security. The cost of your data, collected from both your vehicle and smartphone used as an excuse to increase your insurance rates. The cost of increased fragility, where if everything goes down and you have to get out of the way of some disaster it isn't clear you could drive out. To me, these costs are too expensive. That is why when I recently replaced my primary vehicl

        • You conflate "understanding" with "caring". Yes there's a cost, but I frankly don't give a shit. We live in a world where one can reasonably be expected to be stranded in vehicles at multiple times. That's what auto associations are for. Yes I've been stranded before, and it was a minor annoyance at best. Whoop de fucking do.

          Also no my data is not being collected and shared in any meaningful way by anyone who can meaningfully impact me. We have laws against that. Attempts by insurance companies to do what y

    • Re:Connected cars are a plauge (Score:5, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday February 09, 2026 @05:24AM (#65977178) Homepage Journal

      The original Nissan Leaf had connectivity for driving stats, charge monitoring, and remotely turning on the AC before you set off so that the car is defrosted and warm using AC power. It was free and was supposed to become a paid service, but they never got around to charging for it.

      The driving stats were of limited use. The charge monitoring was useful. The remote AC/defrost is one of the best features of EVs.

      What killed it in a lot of Leafs is that the originals had 2G modems, which are no longer supported by the networks. You can replace them with an open source module with a more modern modem and your own SIM.

    • I can understand self-driving cars needing to be connected

      I can't. I don't want to die or be left stranded because of a disruption in communications. Just no.

  • I'm not desperately impressed by xenophobic analogs to the privacy policies we really need regardless of the nominal HQ of whoever is hoovering up the data; but this seems like a situation where, if the US techbros can't hack it, they might as well just call it a day and go home. We've definitely had years, at least a decade and probably plural decades, of US 'tech' being diverted to software faff vs. the sort of hardware and relatively low-level work that once put the 'silicon' in 'silicon valley' before i

  • The chinese aren't the problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cshark ( 673578 ) on Monday February 09, 2026 @01:53AM (#65977020) Homepage

    Our government is the problem.
    They're well beyond what they're allowed to do at this point in terms of surveillance, and the law doesn't protect people like it should.
    Cars shouldn't be building psychometric profiles on you and selling them to everyone and anyone who wants to know how often you've used your drink holder.

    The adversaries to personal freedom here are local.

    • Re:The chinese aren't the problem (Score:5, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Monday February 09, 2026 @05:25AM (#65977180) Homepage Journal

      You can expect the quality of these cars to drop rapidly as tested, debugged software is replaced by hastily lashed together vibe coded crap.

      Maybe that's the point. Easier for the US government to hack it.

      • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

        by sinij ( 911942 )
        In US, you can vote someone in that would rampage through deep state and in doing so thwart their ability to effectively get into your life. The Pooh and Chinese Communist Party are there to stay regardless of what people of China think about it. That is the difference.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I don't think Pooh and the CCP believe that. They folded over COVID lockdowns, and that's not the only example.

    • The US government is the biggest problem. Any adversary we're importing products from is also a problem.

      If you're concerned about your government having info on you, you should be concerned that they would be able to buy it from another entity which got it from your foreign adversary, or even directly. Why not charge your adversary for partial information on their own citizens?

  • How much Chinese code in Linux? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    How much Chinese code in Linux and other car related OSS?

    For example are Shawn Guo and Huacai Chen from China?

    https://insights.linuxfoundati... [linuxfoundation.org]

  • It sounds crazy, until you dig a little deeper and realize the Chinese government has similar rules about their self-driving cars. China also has further rules about data collection (you know, data you can use to train AI), which I expect the US to duplicate (or try to one-up them) soon.

  • Tesla sells well in China, what if US software is banned?

  • Simple protectionism (Score:3)

    by zephvark ( 1812804 ) on Monday February 09, 2026 @08:00AM (#65977310)

    American car makers are apparently scared sheepless that Chinese EVs would be a big hit. As usual, they employ the government to screw with the market instead of improving their vehicles. Your take on this should be to accept their evaluation that American cars aren't worth buying.

    • Which is absolutely fair and correct if (as per the usual) China is subsidizing the cars in order to undercut the competition.

  • This will fail. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Puls4r ( 724907 ) on Monday February 09, 2026 @11:39AM (#65977658)
    Chinese companies that have been "locked out" of competition in specific areas using legal means. Their response has been to continue to do all the engineering in China, then hire a small American firm to do both the build and programming. But the 'programming' consists of grabbing code that the Chinese firm has uploaded to git-hub, and then debugging it online with the Chinese in zoom calls. And the Chinese still profit from it. Essentially, Chinese tele-presence. In the end, the product has the name of the small American firm on it, but it is a Chinese product, with Chinese code, Chinese design, and profit that goes back to the Chinese.
  • This goes both ways. Ford software in their vehicles is really bad. Quality is low, and security of information in a big unknown. Canada should implement the same rules for U.S. manufactured vehicles that have U.S. code to ensure privacy and security. Imagine the corrupt GOP forcing all U.S. built cars to shutdown?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The Mets were great in 'sixty eight, The Cards were fine in 'sixty nine, But the Cubs will be heavenly in nineteen and seventy." -- Ernie Banks

Close