BYD electric busses have recently rolled out where I live in Sweden.
It's not clear in the article how exactly they discovered it, but by the text that mentions it, I do get the impression they just came across the SIM ports/cards themselves:
> internal tests at a secure facility found Romanian SIM cards inside the buses
But it could also have been that they put the entire bus in a giant Faraday cage (or similar) and tried to see if it emits anything. If they did that, then eSIM or SIM wouldn't have matter, nor where on the bus it was, they'd eventually see it. But if they just physically came across it, then maybe eSIMs would allow them to place them in less accessible areas. But then maybe that wouldn't matter anyways, if the SIM cards are permanently attached anyways.
Bottom line, hopefully wouldn't have made a difference.
Press release (Norwegian): https://www.mynewsdesk.com/no/ruter/pressreleases/ruter-tar-...
And that's what they did. If that was necessary for the conclusions is not said in the article. Only that the remote access could
- Update software (well, that's pretty common)
- Diagnosis (ditto), and
- Manage the control system for battery and power supply.
Not putting this information in the fine print is fraudulent behaviour
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.
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?
Every road vehicle sold today has a sim card, most for diagnostics, some for remote control.
Even you admit that most of them aren't for remote control, so what are you agreeing with?
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.
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.
Here, an article (from June 2025) about Chinese buses full of cameras and other sensors driven regularly inside secret Norwegian army bases. Those buses are to be used during a war or a crisis.
By tecchies.
That’s like adding “In Mice,” to headlines of biological breakthroughs.
It’s quite clear that a fairly significant majority of customers don’t hate Apple. They aren’t “brand slaves,” like Harley riders (anymore), but people clearly vote with their wallets.
Microsoft always had the “My work requires it” thing going, but only a couple of industries are majority Apple.
Like it or not, people pay personal money for Apple kit, and they are a demographic that marketers drool over.
- https://www.theregister.com/2021/02/12/supermicro_bloomberg_... - https://www.wired.com/story/gigabyte-motherboard-firmware-ba...
Soooo, yeah.
It's all the other stuff made in China that is the worry, not the stuff designed by Apple, or Google.
Danish authorities in rush to close security loophole in Chinese electric buses
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/nov/05/danish-authori...
And those buses stink like inside of a plastic factory. Never been to a plastic factory, but rode these buses. And the smell is strong even a year into use. Makes you wonder if China has same rules for carcinogenic plastic in consumer goods.
For context, for a short while I wrote SW for auto BCM's albeit the security stuff not the drive your batteries stuff.
Personally, I'd like to skip over all of the buildup and go straight to hoverboard mafia pizza delivery.
Also, why would they purchase busses that they thought couldn't be remotely monitored or controlled?! That seems like a very valuable feature for public transport.
It fell down to an anti-monopoly decision by a single person in the EU ministry, who killed the proposal. Several attempts were made to streamline the merger, but she wouldn't budge.
As a result, CRCC continues to win contracts abroad, largely (it is believed) by undercutting competition. IP theft is known to be one objective of their at-loss or low-profit contracts (I've been involved in fighting that, specifically).
It's hardly a stretch to imagine that having control of the rail in countries that might oppose you militarily is strategically huge.
This article is about busways, but the parallels are obvious.
Your second sentence is quite a jump, however: "It won't be as big, so there's no point in trying to compete at all."
If you have two large, slow, bureaucratic and uncompetitive companies, then merging them together won't make the resulting giant less so, but the contrary, it'll be even more inefficient and uncompetitive, and then expect government bailouts because now they're too big to fail.
The things you see in EU public tenders is just amazing, especially when they's little to no competition.
Can you give examples of what you (obviously, since you're commenting) have seen, and how typical it is?
Siemens (Germany) and Alstom (France)
> It fell down to an anti-monopoly decision by a single person in the EU ministry, who killed the proposal
Margrethe Vestager, the European Commissioner for Competition at the time (2019). At the time of the decision, she said "No Chinese supplier has ever participated in a signaling tender in Europe or delivered a single very high speed train outside China. There is no prospect of Chinese entry in the European market in the foreseeable future." This has since been proven to be a bad prognostication, as China Railway Signal & Communication (CRSC) is actively deploying its ETCS Level 2 signaling system on the Budapest–Beograd railway line in Hungary[1]; and China has delivered trains to Serbia, leased trains to Austria's Westbahn, acquired German locomotive manufacturer Vossloh Locomotives, and participated in a public tender in Bulgaria for electric trains.
She is no longer in that position. She has as of 2024 become "tough on China,"[2] acknowledging mistakes made in the past and touting how "China came to dominate the solar panel industry... and is running the same game now, across strategic industries including electric vehicles, wind turbines and microchips."
She now says Biden's IRA was a mistake, that Europe has been de-industrializing and that is not a good thing, and that Europe has been too afraid to impose tariffs on China out of fear of retaliation from China.
It sounds remarkably similar to the MAGA playbook on trade and re-industrialization.
[1]https://www.railwaygazette.com/infrastructure/china-railway-...
[2]https://www.politico.eu/newsletter/brussels-playbook/vestage...
> ...acknowledging mistakes made in the past "
That's falling somewhat short of admitting she alone fucked that situation up. The US and Canada had already given permission for the merge to bypass antitrust laws.
"Oopsie!" said the left-wing economist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margrethe_Vestager#Political_c...
> Vestager has been a professional politician since the age of 21, when she was appointed to the central board and executive committee of the SLP and its European Affairs Committee, and shortly afterwards as National Chairwoman of the Party.
Incredible. 21?! Is she a lizard princess or something?
Surveillance tech in products doesn't necessarily imply grey zone warfare. But that doesn't make it a good thing either.
If a state wants to hide strategic "war/espionage" control, they don't use eSims and open mobile communications, trivially discoverable and traceable. Sounds like some bs "IoT" / telemetry shit manufactures are shoving down our throats for over a decade.
The other side is feigning shock at common industry practices (don't all Tesla's require a net connection for example), to paint it as some unique issue, and kill their sales. In other words , just another episode in the trade war.
Not unlike the DJI drones, which added all kinds of shit because the regulators demanded it, and then they act surprised that it has that shit...
The only difference is who could potentially use the backdoor, and yes Sweden seems slightly less poised to attack Norway than China. At least these days. Because, let's face it, the Swedes owned Norway back in the day and them wanting their oil-rich lucky cousin back at home is deranged but not as much as the Chinese wanting the fjords....
They don’t review Windows machines either after the Snowden revelations.
How many wars did the Chinese start in the past century?
1929 – Sino-Soviet Conflict (Chinese Eastern Railway) — ROC authorities moved to seize the CER in Manchuria; the USSR responded militarily. (Initiation: ROC seizure.) 1954–1955 – First Taiwan Strait Crisis — PRC began large-scale shelling of Kinmen/Matsu and amphibious operations (e.g., Yijiangshan). (Initiation: PRC artillery/offensives.) 1958 – Second Taiwan Strait Crisis — PRC opened intense bombardment of Kinmen/Matsu. (Initiation: PRC artillery.) 1962 – Sino-Indian War — PRC launched major offensives in October after a series of frontier incidents. (Initiation: PRC large-scale attack; India calls it unprovoked, PRC says “counter-attack.”) 1967 – Nathu La & Cho La clashes (India border) — Firefights erupted while India was fencing the pass; Chinese forces are generally assessed to have fired first at Nathu La. (Initiation: PRC fire in initial clash.) 1969 – Sino-Soviet Border Conflict — PLA ambushed Soviet troops on Zhenbao/Damansky Island in March; further clashes followed. (Initiation: PRC ambush.) 1974 – Battle of the Paracel Islands (vs South Vietnam) — PLAN/PLA forces expelled RVN units and took full control of the Paracels. (Initiation: PRC naval attack in contested area.) 1979 – Sino-Vietnamese War — PRC invaded northern Vietnam in February. (Initiation: PRC cross-border invasion.) 1984–1989 – Sino-Vietnamese Border War (post-1979 phase) — PRC mounted periodic offensives and artillery duels (e.g., Laoshan/Johnson Mountain). (Initiation: multiple PRC attacks in a protracted conflict.) 1988 – Johnson South Reef Skirmish (Spratlys, vs Vietnam) — PLAN engaged Vietnamese forces and seized the reef. (Initiation: PRC assault during standoff.)
Internal (civil/unification campaigns) 1926–1928 – Northern Expedition — ROC (KMT) launched a national unification war against warlords. (Initiation: ROC campaign.) 1930–1934 – Encirclement Campaigns against the Chinese Soviet — ROC initiated successive large operations against CCP base areas. (Initiation: ROC offensives.) 1949–1950 – Hainan & Zhoushan/Coastal-Islands Campaigns — PRC amphibious operations against ROC-held islands during the civil war endgame. (Initiation: PRC landings.) 1950–1951 – Tibet (Chamdo campaign → occupation) — PLA entered eastern Tibet and compelled the Seventeen-Point Agreement. (Initiation: PRC invasion; PRC frames as “peaceful liberation.”)
dredmorbius•3h ago