this post was submitted on 20 Jan 2026
485 points (97.5% liked)

Eh Buddy Hoser

816 readers
102 users here now

Take off ya hoser!

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fonix232@fedia.io 8 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Kinda hard to ensure that if you can't inspect the entire software and hardware stack.

[–] Ummdustry@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The point of laws isn't to be perfectly enforced, it's just to give recourse when they're broken.

It would be far from impossible for example for a few dweebs to say "hey, despite checking the no spying box in the contract, my car keeps sending data packets out for no reason" currently those dweebs tend to be shit out of luck.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

True but then what would be the recourse? Problem with Chinese manufacturers is that you can't force them to do shit, because of how involved the whole production to sales process is, with little visibility. A part gets manufactured by an ODM, sold with little (or no) customisation to an OEM, who then sells it on to an ODM that manufactures the larger unit from that part, again gets customised for an OEM, and the chain process is repeated 3-4 times.

I went through this exact issue a while back with my standing desk - the controller burned out, but because of how it was manufactured and assembled, it was nigh impossible to track down the actual company that manufactured things and could provide an appropriate replacement.

To shorten the tale - the UK seller bought the entire readily made assembly from a Chinese seller, who bought it from an ODM and stamped their logo on it. That ODM (let's call them A) in turn bought the components of the desk - the frame, the motors, the motor controller, the motor controller handler, the power supply, etc. - from different OEMs, who in turn bought them from ODMs with minimal customisation (aside from branding, a level of programming differentiation also went into the MC to specify the motor it will drive, the MCH to specify the protocol version with the MC, the motors to program the limits and limit handling, and so on). So A bought 5 parts from 5 OEMs, each bought them from different ODMs, and I needed to specifically find who A bought the controller from, and what programming parameters they used. Took me nearly 6 months.

Now, how this is a problem when it comes to EVs? Pretty simple. You buy a car from A, but the ODM is B, who used OEMs C, D, E, F, G, and H for parts, each of them using different ODMs. Turns out that one part is actually doing the spying, and A "finds out" it's done by a part sold by E. So they eliminate E from the supply chain, replacing them with company Z - but Z buys the exact same part from the same ODM, so the issue isn't eliminated. Meanwhile A can tell the EU that the problem was resolved (except it wasn't), and not get into any trouble because they can always point fingers. Oh, and E actually gets dissolved and since people in China can't be held responsible for their companies' crimes (if convicted abroad), the same people go on to form company Z and continue the exact same shit under a different name.

This is why you'll always find the same crappy products on Amazon, but under a different keysmash company name.

Oh and you can't even get rid of A, because the moment you try, a dozen other companies - using the same suppliers, same ODMs just different OEMs, often run by the same people as A - will pop up to take their place.

Enforcing EU regulations on Chinese companies isn't as straightforward as "let's make up the laws and enforce them when we can". It goes a lot deeper and it begins at the ability of transparent review of imported products. Which the Chinese won't allow because of their general cultural attitude of "IP theft is okay if I do it but horrible if it's done to me".

[–] KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

You're overthinking this - perfect is the enemy of good and all that. The automobile manufacturer would bear this responsibility. The scale of the problem is very different when the object is the size of a car and has to go through a huge regulatory process in order to be sold in the country in the first place.

Just because it's hard to enforce laws for a small instance in a grey market doesn't mean it's still not useful.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's what you're not getting. The manufacturer wouldn't bear shit because they can point fingers at a supplier, claim they've replaced the supplier while nothing changes (or the spying moves onto a different component). And if they do get the short end of the stick, the people behind the manufacturer just spin up another company and sell slightly different cars with the same spying crap, without anyone really knowing because to the public it's a brand new company...

[–] KingOfTheCouch@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Someone might weasel out of ticket/fine/jail whatever so we shouldn't bother?

That is the most shit excuse to not make laws.

I was passed by a pickup in a 100 zone... that guy had to be doing 120 at least. I guess since he wasn't caught we should just cancel all speed limit laws?

Come on... try not to be so pessimistic. It's not about saving every single person, it's about trying to statistically get things better for more people overall.

[–] fonix232@fedia.io 0 points 2 days ago

That's literally the opposite of what I said...

Again I'm not saying we don't need laws, but what we need is true transparency ALONGSIDE those laws from any entity wanting to enter the market. Chinese manufacturers want to sell to European markets? Awesome, they can, if they can provide full transparency of their hardware and software stack. Period.