One was scolded for being locked, one was scolded for not being locked. Whose interests are the automakers' "digital fences" actually protecting?

Recently, two strange things happened in the automotive circle, and they must be viewed together.

A Zeekr, the owner drove abroad themselves, got locked for over 30 hours right after entering Kazakhstan. A Li Auto L9, the owner said the car was stolen domestically, but the location also appeared in Kazakhstan.

One actively locked, one not locked. Regarding vehicle cross-border, should automakers lock them?

Zeekr: Self-driving abroad, locked for 30 hours

On July 16, Henan owner Mr. Liu drove a Zeekr 9X to start a Eurasian self-driving tour. As soon as the car entered Kazakhstan, the next day the car system popped up a bunch of prompts——

Navigation unusable, music unplayable, storage box stuck, documents cannot be retrieved.

Even more extreme, the fuel cap won't open, cannot refuel. This car only has one basic driving function remaining.

Lasting over 30 hours, the in-car screen repeatedly popped up prompts "Vehicle status abnormal, please contact official customer service", to unlock must return to domestic authorized store.

Mr. Liu told the store he was going abroad before departure, but no one reminded him about locking the car.

Zeekr responded: Vehicles sold domestically only have authorization for use within the country, triggering security protection mechanisms after leaving the border to prevent theft, robbery, and illegal export. Car owner wants to unlock? Yes, submit passport, customs documents, purchase contract, invoice, driver's license, visa... full set of materials.

Netizens exploded: I spent 500,000 to buy this car, and going abroad I still have to report to you?

Li Auto: L9 disappears into thin air, theft or debt?

Look at Li Auto again.

Hangzhou owner Mr. Luo, received system notification in March this year: Li Auto L9 APP control permissions expired.

Where is the car? Car is gone. Location shows, this car appeared in Kazakhstan.

Owner questioned: Did Li Auto remotely unlock it and smuggle the car out of the country? Public opinion rapidly fermented, "Disappearing Li Auto" topped the hot searches.

Interestingly, this came out exactly on the day of the Li Auto L6 launch, the timing was quite delicate.

But the situation quickly reversed — police and media investigation found: This car was mortgaged three times.

First time mortgaged to WeBank, loaned 300,000; second time mortgaged to Zhenong Microcredit, loaned 200,000; third time directly pledged to private lending party, even the physical key was handed over.

This isn't over. The owner also did something: Replaced the third physical key, causing the keys in the pledge party's hand to fail directly. Pledge party found car keys unusable, drove the car away overnight, transported all the way to Horgos, cleared customs overnight. Upon arriving in Kazakhstan, to allow local buyers to use it normally, the pledge party also applied to unbind the original owner's account permissions. This is not car theft, this is a debt dispute.

Li Auto legal department issued a statement on April 22: Never participated in illegal transfer, no hacker cracking involved, remote operations were all executed by the actual registered person's own account.

Locked or Not Locked, Both Scolded

Putting two things together for comparison, it's interesting.

Zeekr locked — scolded.

Owner went abroad for self-driving, inexplicably locked for 30 hours, even fuel cap won't open, experience extremely poor.

Li Auto didn't lock — also scolded.

Some comments said: Geely too proactive, locked as soon as going abroad; Li Auto too passive, watched the car drag from Hangzhou to the seaside, transported to Horgos, exited country. Later, to let overseas buyers use it, even unbound the original owner account permissions.

Locked gets scolded, not locked also gets scolded. Whatever automakers do is wrong. But is the problem really that simple?

Why do automakers set up "digital fences"?

This thing really isn't automakers being idle. Behind it there are three layers of logic:

First, black and gray industries are rampant

The price difference between domestic and foreign new energy vehicles is huge.

Zeekr 009 domestic over 400,000, Singapore sells over 2 million; BYD Han domestic over 200,000, Europe sells to over 500,000. Smuggling cars abroad, profit space is how big, you calculate. One car smuggled out, profit can double or triple. The black industry chain behind this is far bigger than imagined.

Second, regulatory hard requirements

February this year, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and other eight departments jointly issued "Safety Guidelines for Automotive Data Outbound (2026 Edition)", vehicle location, trajectory, mapping data, cannot be casually sent abroad. Automakers without geographic fences, they violate the law themselves first.

Third, industry common practice

Tesla, BMW, Mercedes-Benz have similar restrictions in border areas. Same logic as remote locking phones lost — not to harm you, but to protect you.  Prevent vehicles from being illegally sold, or stolen and then sold abroad.

July 26, Zeekr announced emergency rectification:

First, APP launched "Cross-border Protection" function, one-click self-service unlock.

Second, develop "Cross-border Protection Function Switch", default off, owner decides to open or not before leaving country.

Third, 24-hour customer service priority channel.

Say simply — return the initiative of locking car back to owner.

As for Li Auto, legal department clarified in April, but public opinion storm continues.

The core contradiction of these two things is actually just one:

Automakers' geographic fences, are they protecting owners, or restricting owners? The answer might be — both.

Without this mechanism, smuggling, theft, data violations would be rampant. But execution methods are too crude, indeed let compliant users suffer losses in silence.

So Zeekr's rectification direction is right: default no lock, let owner choose before leaving country.  Handing choice rights to users is more reliable than any "thinking for you". After all, car belongs to user, not automaker.

Satu dikunci dipuji (disalahkan), satu tidak dikunci pun disalahkan. "Pagar digital" syarikat kereta, sebenarnya melindungi sesiapa?

Baru-baru ini ada dua perkara pelik dalam industri automotif, perlu dilihat sebagai satu kes.

Sebuah Zeekr, pemilik memandu sendiri ke luar negara, baru masuk Kazakhstan sudah dikunci selama lebih 30 jam. Sebuah Li Auto L9, pemilik kata kereta dicuri di dalam negara, lokasi pun muncul di Kazakhstan.

Satu dikunci secara aktif, satu tidak dikunci. Untuk kenderaan merentasi sempadan, patutkah syarikat kereta menguncinya?

Zeekr: Memandu Sendiri Ke Luar Negara, Dikunci 30 Jam

16 Julai, Encik Liu dari Henan memandu Zeekr 9X untuk perjalanan merentasi Eropah dan Asia. Kereta baru masuk Kazakhstan, sehari kemudian skrin kereta keluar banyak notis—

Navigasi tidak boleh guna, muzik tidak boleh dengar, storan tidak boleh buka, dokumen tidak boleh ambil.

Lebih hebat lagi, penutup tangki minyak tidak boleh dibuka, tidak boleh isi minyak. Kereta ini hanya tinggal fungsi memandu asas sahaja yang boleh digunakan.

Berlangsung lebih 30 jam, skrin dalam kereta berulang kali keluar pop-up提示 "Status kenderaan luar biasa, sila hubungi khidmat pelanggan rasmi", untuk membuka kunci mesti kembali ke kedai autorisasi dalam negara.

Encik Liu memberitahu kedai sebelum keluar negeri nak ke luar negara, tapi tiada siapa mengingatkan pasal penguncian kereta.

Zeekr beri respons: Kereta dijual dalam negara hanya ada keizinan guna dalam sempadan, selepas keluar sempadan guna mekanisme keselamatan untuk cegah curi dan eksport haram. Pemilik nak buka kunci? Boleh, hantar pasport, dokumen通关, kontrak beli kereta, invois, lesen memandu, visa... semua dokumen.

Netizen meledak: Kereta yang saya beli dengan harga 500,000 Yuan, nak ke luar negara pun kena laporkan pada awak?

Li Auto: L9 Hilang Sekelebat, Curian atau Hutang?

Lihat pula pihak Li Auto.

Encik Luo dari Hangzhou, Mac tahun ini dapat notis sistem: Kuasa kawalan APP Li Auto L9 tidak sah lagi.

Kereta mana? Kereta hilang. Lokasi tunjuk, kereta ini ada di Kazakhstan.

Pemilik ragu: Adakah Li Auto buka kunci jauh, hantar kereta ke luar negara secara tersembunyi? Pendapat orang merebak cepat, "Li Auto Hilang" naik trending topik.

Menariknya, hal ini muncul tepat pada hari pelancaran Li Auto L6, masa amat sensitif.

Tapi perkara cepat jadi sebaliknya -> Polis dan media siasat: Kereta ini telah disetel tiga kali.

Kali pertama disetel ke Bank WeBank, pinjam 300,000 Yuan; kali kedua disetel ke Zhejiang Nongxin Small Loan, pinjam 200,000 Yuan; kali ketiga terus gadaikan pada pinjaman peribadi, kunci fizikal pun diserahkan.

Belum habis. Pemilik buat satu lagi: Ganti kunci fizikal ketiga, buat kunci di tangan pemberi gadai jadi tidak berfungsi. Pemberi gadai jumpa kunci tak guna, malam tu bawa kereta, hantar ke Khorgos, malam itu lulus sempadan keluar negara. Sampai Kazakhstan, untuk pembeli tempatan guna biasa, pemberi gadai juga mohon buka ikatan akaun pemilik asal. Ini bukan curi kereta, ini sengketa hutang.

Unit Guaman Li Auto 22 April dah beri pernyataan: Tak pernah ikut sama pemindahan haram, tiada haker, operasi jauh semua guna akaun pemilik sebenar.

Dikunci atau Tak Dikunci, Sama-Sama Disalahkan

Dua benda ini disamping, menarik.

Zeekr dikunci -> Disalahkan.

Pemilik ke luar negara, peliknya dikunci 30 jam, tak boleh buka tangki, pengalaman teruk.

Li Auto tak dikunci -> Disalahkan juga.

Ada komen: Geely terlalu aktif, sekali ke luar negara terus kunci; Li Auto terlalu pasif, tengok sahaja kereta dari Hangzhou ditarik ke tepi laut, hantar ke Khorgos, keluar negara. Kemudian untuk pembeli luar negara guna, ikatan akaun pemilik asal pun dibuang.

Dikunci kena marah, tak dikunci pun kena marah. Macam mana syarikat buat salah je. Tapi masalah betul-betul mudah macam ni?

Mengapa Syarikat Kereta Buat "Pagar Digital"?

Ini tak semudah tu. Ada tiga logik di sebaliknya:

Pertama, industri hitam dan kelabu terlalu ganas

Perbezaan harga kereta elektrik dalam dan luar negara besar.

Zeekr 009 dalam negara 400,000 Yuan+, Singapura jual 2 juta+; BYD Han dalam negara 200,000 Yuan+, Eropah jual 500,000 Yuan+. Jual semula ke luar negara, ruang untung berapa, kira sendiri. Satu kereta diselundup keluar, untung boleh jadi berlipat. Industri hitam di sebaliknya, jauh lebih besar dari jangkaan.

Kedua, keperluan undang-undang tegas

Februari tahun ini, Kementerian Perindustrian dan lapan jabatan lain keluarkan "Panduan Keselamatan Data Kereta Keluar Sempadan (Versi 2026)", lokasi kereta, lintasan, data peta, tak boleh hantar luar negara senang. Syarikat tak pasang pagar geografik, mereka sendiri melanggar.

Ketiga, amalan industri biasa

Tesla, BMW, Mercedes-Benz ada sekatan sama di kawasan sempadan. Logik sama dengan kunci jauh phone hilang -> Bukan nak ganggu awak, nak lindungi awak.   Cegah kereta jual beli haram, selepas curi hancur keluar negara.

26 Julai, Zeekr umumkan pindaan mendadak:

Pertama, APP guna fungsi "Jagaan Sempadan", satu butang buka kunci sendiri.

Kedua, kembangkan "tombol fungsi Jagaan Sempadan", default tutup, sebelum keluar negara pemilik putuskan sendiri.

Ketiga, laluan utama khidmat pelanggan 24 jam.

Mudahnya -> Kembalikan kuasa kunci kepada pemilik.

Mengenai Li Auto, unit guaman April dah betulkan, tapi ribut pendapatan masih berlanjutan.

Konflik utama dua benda ini cuma satu:

Pagar geografik syarikat kereta, sebenarnya lindungi pemilik atau batasi pemilik? Jawapannya mungkin -> Kedua-duanya.

Tanpa mekanisme ini, penyelundupan, curian, data tidak sah akan merajalela. Tapi cara guna terlalu kasar, memang buat pengguna ikut undang-undang rugi tanpa suara.

Jadi arah pindaan Zeekr betul: Default tak kunci, sebelum keluar negara biar pemilik pilih sendiri.   Serahkan kuasa pilih kepada pengguna, lebih baik dari "fikirkan untuk awak". Memang, kereta jadi milik pengguna, bukan milik syarikat.