Canada relies on foreign auto executives for its auto industry. It already provides huge taxpayer subsidies per job. There is certainly a possible future where all of those foreign loyal companies side with US to destroy Canadian auto production/investment.

China could help save Canadian auto industry by providing motors and batteries for Canadian made EVs. Chinese investment to make goods from Canadian resources in Canada is a path for scale that includes global export potential of autos and other industrial goods to whole globe including China.
If it doesn't make economic sense to make our own tube socks, it doesn't make sense to make overly expensive cars, either. There is a stronger national security argument for apparel, that needs yearly replacements, than solar, batteries, and autos that last 20+ years. More so, when they are not dependent on continuous international fuel supply chains/geopolitics.

Pressure on foreign executives to support Canadian production includes access to Canadian market. The stability of status quo will appeal to most people. But the threat/plan B of cooperation with China is both a path to manufacturing and resource FDI paid by China instead of taxpayers, and better quality of life through better value goods.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

You're forgetting something critical, cars are computers and can be updated or even bricked remotely with the current systems in place. This is an unacceptable risk from a foreign power, only a close ally (not the US anymore) should even potentially be able to supply these.

I would actually like to see any sort of over the air update systems be banned, it should only be possible when plugged in physically.

The only thing that should be possible remotely is reading info.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Almost all laptops you've touched over the last decade are made in China or Vietnam. Most computer motherboards are made in China or Vietnam. My Framework laptop is made in Taiwan but its mainboard is Chinese. Most Android phones are made in China or Vietnam. So are most iPhones.

All of the factory software loading happens at the place of manufacture. Some of the software is made there too. Some of these computers have had compromised factory software which has been subsequently fixed. Cough.. Lenovo.. cough. Yet Lenovo is used at Canadian banks and other critical infrastructure places.

What I'm trying to say is that the computers on wheels aren't a uniquely problematic domain. We have regulation for secure domains that systems have to pass audits and such. The same mechanism can be used for cars of any manufacture. I don't know how BYD software updates work by default but for example Ford doesn't do software updates without explicit agreement from the user letting them do it. If BYD works differently, it can be forced to change. Do you think the EU let BYD sell spying equipment on wheels that doesn't comply with the GDPR? I doubt it. We can ask for the same software compliance.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's far easier to detect software issues on a computer compared to a car, they're much more open ecosystems for software

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Kind of. The high level OS modules are using QNX, Linux and Android. Lower level modules can be more arcane.

Am working in NA automotive and data collection is very much discussed in terms of what's allowed in different jurisdictions and modules are configured differently for different markets accordingly.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

What does that have to do with how proprietary the auto systems are?

It's far easier to detect a compromise on Windows or Linux than on a custom embedded system for which there is zero public documentation.

[–] MasterOKhan@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There’s already a precedent for this with most of our technology in our country and we already implement safeguards against this. I’m not worried about this being any different

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No there isn't

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Any vehicle that can recieve an ota update can be remotely bricked.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You said "we already implement safeguards against this"

No there isn't.

[–] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Uuuummm, the fuck ya talking about?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

There aren't safeguards to protect us from a car manufacturer intentionally disabling vehicles.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago

We normally don't worry about products we buy having hidden bombs ready to be triggered by a genocidal government the manufacturer is beholden to. Same for bricking. It is bad for business.

I would actually like to see any sort of over the air update systems be banned, it should only be possible when plugged in physically.

A government agency independent of our spy/political systems, could administer all updates. wired or air doesn't matter much.

[–] nebula@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

For that part, I'd be equally scared of any company, no matter it's origin. So as solution, I'd prefer if we get laws that ensures there is option for concerned users to completely disable remote telemetry. I don't need my car internet connected just so I can see the tire pressure in an app, I'd rather a car not share my location 24/7 and driving data only for companies to sell it to cheapest bidder.

[+] Daryl@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

https://www.theverge.com/2015/7/21/9009213/chrysler-uconnect-vulnerability-car-hijack

I mean, it's literally already happened, and this was a hacker doing it so it's even easier for a car company to do it.

Any vehicle with OnStar can also be remotely disabled as well, it's literally advertised as an anti-theft feature. https://www.onstar.com/tips/stolen-vehicle-assistance-helps-stop-thieves

If your car can be contacted remotely (almost every modern vehicle) I guarantee you that it's possible for the manufacturer to brick it. It may not even require an update, there could be a hidden command in the existing software since the software is not publicly available to validate, nor is it being validated by the regulatory authorities.

[+] Daryl@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I simply mean it can't be used. Doesn't even need to be as bad as doing it while driving.

A foreign power able to disable the transportation for even 1 in 5 personal vehicles would be devestating to the country. The economic effects would be massive.

[–] karlhungus@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Takeover the complete control of the car?

Maybe not complete control, but maybe taking away breaks yes: https://www.wired.com/2015/07/hackers-remotely-kill-jeep-highway/

Miller and Valasek’s full arsenal includes functions that at lower speeds fully kill the engine, abruptly engage the brakes, or disable them altogether. The most disturbing maneuver came when they cut the Jeep's brakes, leaving me frantically pumping the pedal as the 2-ton SUV slid uncontrollably into a ditch.