The issue was the eSIMs identified were not disclosed by Yutong, which clearly falls afoul of procurement and cybersecurity regulations.

I wasn't aware of that, thanks. But still, if you go buy a car right now, I doubt they are going to make it a sales pitch that you are not the only one who can control your car.

This is why we invented the fine print.

Not putting this information in the fine print is fraudulent behaviour

There are limits to what can be put into the fine print as well. We probably need to revisit though rules, but you can't get away with anything just by putting it in the fine print.

It was most likely in the specs from the beginning. You can't have busses roaming around with no way to turn them off remotely.

"You can't have busses roaming around with no way to turn them off remotely."

Hm? Not a single bus on the road in my city can be turned off remotely. There's never been one ever, since bus transport started. So why should, no, must, that be a feature of new buses?

Why do you think that they can't be turned off remotely? They all have over the air updates. Just push the update the bricks the bus.

Look at what I replied to. The claim was "You can't have [buses] roaming around with no way to turn them off remotely". As if there's some general rule or agreement that it MUST be possible to turn buses off remotely. What I stated was that of course there's no such mandate.

And when I said "Not a single bus on the road in my country can be turned off remotely", that's the truth. They can't. They're all diesel, so there's not even a remote possibility of a hidden esim-powered switch.

Why did the post I replied to claim that it must be possible for buses? And why did you assume that I meant something else, and that all buses are electric?

I’m pretty sure turning off the bus is something the bus driver can do. It’s not like buses were wildly roaming around before cellular networks were invented…

Yes, those wild buses on the loose have been a major problem

Kinda explains why nothing is being done in Poland about hunters accidently killing lots of people, mistaking them for boars. If you crack down on hunters, you can't have them control the population of wild buses.

Can't you? And who should have that power? I believe that this is the concern.

What? That's the way it's always been.

Do you imagine some benevolent authority sits in your town with a finger on the kill switch for every vehicle in motion?

If it were in the specs from the beginning, there would be no issue. This isn't a "click here to accept" thing; multiple people scan the technical data in these projects.

Better than a bus that are blown up if it goes under 50 mph.

I fully agree. If these were buses from any other country, this would not be an issue.

Every road vehicle sold today has a sim card, most for diagnostics, some for remote control.

The tests done on the buses showed that they can be stopped as well as otherwise controlled remotely from China. This is way more than diagnostics, and remote control is _not_ something which is common in road vehicles.

Having "a sim card" is less than saying your car "has an on-board computer". In no way does that imply remote control.

Even you admit that most of them aren't for remote control, so what are you agreeing with?

Remote control is just one over the air update away.

International politics does matter. So, yes, a country that is historically hostile, or allied with countries that are hostile, towards yours, gets different treatment.

100% false.

For obvious reasons, non-CBTC trains are not remotely controllable (CBTC essentially means "remotely driven"). It's all or nothing; either a safety system that inherently accepts the risk, or no way to remotely control the speed, short of fully stopping the train.

If modern cars have been fully remotely controllable for years, why can't police stop often-deadly car chases?

Ditto on air traffic control and small planes; many don't even have in-plane automatic pilots. AFAIK no ultralights ever do.

Most boats are not remotely controllable; even the large container ship that recently damaged a major US bridge didn't.

>If modern cars have been fully remotely controllable for years, why can't police stop often-deadly car chases?

They want to retain the power of discretionary action. If the powers that be employed their 1984 stuff all the time over trivial things people wouldn't support them. Part of this means they don't give the beat cops those toys.

Also, there's a difference between "can be" and "are". Like there's god knows how many numbers of compatibility layers and intermediary systems I bet even if the capability exists it's broken more often than it's not. Diverse software systems take a ton of constant work to maintain.

During the "last years of XP" era you probably could have theoretically taken down half the world's industry on paper but if you tried to do so at scale without literal years of prep and testing you'd have been foiled by the 50% of machines where you payload just didn't work for some obscure reason.

If the internet has all the information and you are on the internet, why don't you know this already?

What on Earth are you rambling about now?

Can you help me find the mechanism that remotely engages the clutch on my truck?