I think you misunderstood the insinuation.[1] I believe they're suggesting that otherwise legitimate vulnerability concerns are discounted in favor of a laissez faire market policy unless and until the concerns are framed by a xenophobic narrative. IOW, xenophobia trumps capitalism, but not measured security concerns.
[1] But that's why sarcasm is usually frowned upon on HN.
Why would the average consumer car about intelligence of a foreign state? I, for one, have no fear of China presently but the climate in the USA isn't very pro free speech.
They don't (at least, not in peace time), but the US government does. They also buy cars.
Also the concerns of the average consumer aren't a really good barometer for what should be legal. Most consumers gladly sign up for services that violate their privacy, because they don't understand the consequences at the time of purchase. Also people are pretty bad at estimating risks of unknown certainty even when they do know about them. If 'buyer-beware' worked, there would be no need for consumer protection law... but this segment of the law has originated from necessity.
Cars are regulated to high heaven. They don't regulate software quality because the unholy union of big business and government that is the current US auto sector and its regulators have yet to find a way or need to do so that benefits them.
If it only impacted automakers they might do it. However if you apply this standard to cars you will have to apply it to a lot of other sectors. After all why stop at car makers. Why should other appliances not get the same treatment like IoT as well? A lot of other companies would hate to have this standard applied to them hence they lobby against it as well.
