You're right that the patent is specific to leased vehicles. But that shouldn't be confused with the underlying technology, which would have to be baked into the software of all vehicles, including those sold outright.
This means the vulnerability of remote hacking will exist for all vehicles. And who knows what will be buried deep in the TOS — perhaps in a few years we'll hear about Ford shutting down vehicles for people who attended a particular protest that is not in line with the current social mores.
It's just a matter of time before this technology is used to extract rent on non-leased cars just like subscriptions for heated seats/etc (or intentionally make the full "own outright" model unaffordable so everyone is forced into leasing where they can use this tech).
China bans all Western social media tech in the widest way possible for more than a decade and the minute a Western govt enacts a ban on govt devices, folks say this is unfair.
I think a big part of the objection over banning TikTok is that we, in the US, feel we should be able to make our own choices when it comes to social media (and most everything). Banning an app is antithetical to freedom.
Never said it was -- if you follow the thread you'll see I was replying to someone pointing out that China has banned US social networks. The implication being that true US banning TikTok would only be fair, or something like that.
> We already ban a ton of stuff.
We do... and those bans do limit freedom, by definition. We've accepted that in a lot of cases -- few are arguing that child porn should be anything but banned, for example -- but I doubt we'd accept a government ban or restriction on, say, League of Legends simply because kids spend too much time on it (China places restrictions on time of day and duration).
> Never said it was -- if you follow the thread you'll see I was replying to someone pointing out that China has banned US social networks. The implication being that true US banning TikTok would only be fair, or something like that.
You replied to me. I simply said this is not unfair.
> ban or restriction on, say, League of Legends simply
Stepping away from hypotheticals: A lot of countries have restrictions on what you and you can't do with govt resources. E.g., there are restrictions on what carriers you can use if you fly with govt. funding. Other countries have similar rules. There is nothing wrong or unfair or "freedom limiting" with the US govt banning a likely foreign govt. controlled app from govt. devices.
Companies like Google and Facebook CHOOSE to not operate in China because they don't want to follow the the laws that Chinese companies are following. They're not banned, they're not allowed to operate unless they comply with local laws. Just like they wouldn't be allowed to operate in Europe if they didn't show a Cookie pop-up. It's not like they're not allowed to operate in China because they're American apps.
The US should make the data collection itself illegal for everyone and be done with it. They're currently walking this weird path where the exact same data collection is fine if it's Americans doing. It's not one set of rules for everyone.
> The US should make the data collection itself illegal for everyone and be done with it. They're currently walking this weird path where the exact same data collection is fine if it's Americans doing. It's not one set of rules for everyone.
Data collection is NOT the issue.
Foreign govt interference is the issue. If tomorrow Google were controlled by a hostile foreign govt., they would face the same bans.
But your link (the NYT times) says exactly what I said. They don't comply with local laws, which is why they're not accessible there. Not sure what else to tell you. Even Facebook's official comment is, which can be found if you follow the links you've posted:
“We need to figure out a solution that is in line with our principles and what we want to do, and in line with the laws there, or else it’s not going to happen. Right now, there isn’t an intersection.”
> Foreign govt interference is the issue. If tomorrow Google were controlled by a hostile foreign govt., they would face the same bans.
So it _is_ simply because it's foreign. How long do you think Google would survive in the US if it didn't comply with US requests? It does comply with requests and three letter agencies have access to data (as per Edward Snowden).
If your stance is that it's fine when we do it but not when others do it then that's just what it is.
> But your link (the NYT times) says exactly what I said.
No, it doesn’t. Read again. Was a fair trial held? No. End of story.
CCP does not rule according to laws. The only laws are CCP’s words and now Do’s words.
And you have a false equivalence here. TikTok has CCP board members and is not banned for US citizens.
> So it _is_ simply because it's foreign. How long do you think Google would survive in the US if it didn't comply with US requests? It does comply with requests and three letter agencies have access to data (as per Edward Snowden).
For a while. There would be court cases. Companies refuse US govt requests all the time and fight it in a court of law. A Snowden equivalent in China would be killed and not just a fugitive.
The CCP doesn't allow Facebook on PLA devices either. Because they're not idiots. All superpowers have significant domestic legal power to collect information regarding national security risks (read: competing militaries/governments).
This is just what's publically announced, because companies have no international recourse against China. They sure as hell won't release info about obtaining profiles of various US officials. The CCP can tell Chinese corps to do whatever it wants them to do. It's not like the US. And to think they haven't leveraged the most effective psy-op and surveillance tool in the world is, honestly, quite naive.
So you mean to say everyone has an agenda to cross? Which, by the way, also means that you have an agenda to cross too. "Anti-anti-corporation guy makes anti-anti-corporation comment: Reddit/HN Pitchfork"
And more and more corporations would turn into dust with that kind of workforce. This is the fate of the west. Look at what happened to Intel, oracle, IBM etc which hired these H1B "coders" and middle management. I'm not complaining, just observing.
I don't think there is correlation between hiring cheaper and a corporation doing worse. The fact is these people are as smart as the rest if not smarter(they had fierce competition), definetely hardworking and motivated(make less, sleep on the floor and send the rest of the money back to family).
It's just the great equalization and dissapearance of middle class in western countries.
Fierce competition does not mean something is good. There's fierce competition for bread that volunteers hand out of UNICEF trucks into a crowd of hungry, desolate people. Neither does that make the bread tasty, nor the winners "smarter".
>definetely hardworking and motivated.
Disagree. My experience, generally speaking, has been that they do not pay attention to detail, and are not that smart. Even though they might be motivated to keep the job, and they do make great corporate drones, but they do not come anywhere near what it takes to make successful product.
Don't pay heed to the commenter above you. They have been guilt tripping Germany since decades. Germany would have been better off if it had kept it's own interest first, by drawing redlines around American intentions of taking out nordstream.
And I'm not even German, rather an American. But I do keep my eyes and mind open and realize what's going on. Why don't Germans do the same? Hard to think this is the civilization of great thinkers.
