Surveillance is good as long as we like the direction the machine is heading.
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
402 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
48886 readers
1013 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Black tape ought to solve it, if not a pair of wire cutters.
I don’t think you are paranoid. This technology is creepy as hell. Almost all cars are connected nowadays and send data back to the manufacturer’s server—visible or not. In the best case it’s just the service history, in the worst case live positions and more. Some cars stop working if the server is shut down *cough. Cameras equipped to unlock based on a face record biometric data. And honestly, would you trust your car manufacturer (!) to handle your biometric data?
Another in the list of a "1001 Things To Do With Duct Tape."
I think it's unacceptable and indicative of this dangerous path we are headed down as whole. There's already been a few write ups on how cars are the most privacy disrespecting "devices" out there, which is wild considering we have smartphones.
With the driver facing camera we have no control over it also has complete access to our travel data, probably knows exactly who we are in the car with, records all our private conversations etc. etc.
It's so tiring to hear people defend this as if privacy is a thing of the past and anyone advocating it is being dramatic.
I fckn hate these laws that force so much tech into new cars under the guise of safety. Not only is it a massive breach in privacy (I don't care if the car manufacturers claim they don't use this data for identification, I won't belive them), but it also makes small cars way more expensive, comparatively. Fck this sh*t, cars have been becoming obnoxiously expensive and forced BS tech like that just makes everything worse.
It's rent seeking through regulations. It's too expensive to make a simple car that also complies with these regulations. The only people who can afford to do it are gigantic established brands with a century of production lines and established infrastructure.
"Oh no. More car brands failed. We can't let them fail can we? Allow us to merge more?"
"Oh no. We're in trouble financially. If we die you won't have cars at all any more because we merged everything. Lots and lots of your voters will be pissed if that happens. There's also no way in hell a new car brand is going to establish itself when it costs so damn much to meet these regulations we lobbied and guided to benefit our established interests"
Clearly they use it for identification if as the OP said the camera can be used to load your driver profile. As far as I know that goes directly against the EU law stating no biometric data can be processed by the camera.
I'm cool with just not driving. Fuck you, car manufacturers. If I can't feasibly live a lifestyle on public transit I'll buy the oldest shittiest shitbox on Earth and drive it until it fucking explodes.
I'm desperately holding on to my Ford Ranger for this exact reason. Obligatory Fuck car manufacturers.
Your concern is definitely justified. This is creepy as hell.
Required in the EU and will be required in the US soon. BYD's big export market is Australia which doesn't require them yet but they're mandatory to get a good crash safety rating.
Renault and a lot of BYDs use Android as the software os, so probably it's Android doing the facial recognition (and also probably the attention eye tracking) and that's onboard.
Renault has a dashcam function that records from the built in cameras, but you have to plug in your own USB drive, so the upside of memory price-fixing is it's probably not worth it for Renault to spend $300 to store the data now.
So it'll be possible to root the car through an OBD2 port, theoretically.
Maybe but I don't see you doing that over can us so it would need other connection to the ICE. I'd guess all those updates are OTA now.
I'm guessing though, 2014 is my newest car
I'll just buy a second-hand 2011 Skoda Fabia. Compact car that just works and doesn't spy on you. Though I'd rather buy the LPG version of it because it costs 86 eurocents/liter here.
It's an EU decision. It will be coming to many more cars as it will be mandatory from July 2026 for all newly registered vehicles. Renault 5 is simply one of the first new cars to feature it.
According to the same law, it is illegal to use the system in a way that can identify the person, it may not save biometrics, and it must function in closed loop without sharing the data. It's looking for things like head nodding or looking away from the road for more than 3.5 seconds while driving over 50 km/h. The camera is likely using infrared lighting as it should also work at night.
Anyway. According to the manual, it can be disabled by double tapping a button on the steering wheel or through the touch screen menus, though it will default to being enabled everytime you start the car as per the legal requirement.
If you cover it with tape, wear a mask or drive somebody else's car in which you don't have a profile saved, it will simply use the last previous profile and show an icon in the dashboard as a warning that the function isn't working.
Thank you for the clarification!
I wish, Renault and/or the salesperson would communicate clearly about the camera. It's way creepier when there is just a camera looking at you without having the context of it being required and which privacy requirements it has per law.
Interestingly, if I disable the function and then cover the camera, a warning still appears. I don't know if that's due to a weird implementation by Renault or a thing implied by the law
I think it's an update from January. The first produced R5s doesn't seem to have the camera on the A-pillar. It's part of the media system which is used in other models as well.
I can't imagine that rentals or fleet cars will throw a warning every time someone new uses the car, so I want to bet that the warnings can be disabled somehow with the right access to the ECU.
Renault uses their own ECU computers, which are quite expensive, but previous versions have been accessible using an OSB dongle with other software.
I'm sure someone will eventually figure out how to get into the system once these cars get old enough to reach the used market.
Monthly subscription for safety features coming soon 🔜
The car complains when the camera is covered. At a minimum that means making annoying sounds every time you drive anywhere, at worst the car doesn't let you drive. You can't just dismiss this, it's going to happen more and more, and they will be increasingly hostile to your workarounds.
So disconnect the speaker and the noise should stop
Break the camera? Remove it? Scratch the lens?
In a few years, this might brick your car. Have fun paying to have it towed to the dealership. User-caused damage isn't covered under warranty by the way.
.
.
Why does everything have to suck so much...
Because the people making these laws aren't handled appropriately.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Find and disable the antenna used by the cars electronics.
You have to log your profile into your car?? Fuck everything about that!
My car has profiles for seat position, mirror position, radio settings etc but it's just Driver 1 and Driver 2 and you select with a button.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
"what about the camera on your laptop?"
My personal laptop does not have a camera, and my work laptop has a physical camera blocker.
anybody that doesn't think its an issue is an idiot
Some of these dorks out here would fr be supportive of a "smart" camera in their toilet looking straight at their hole/s. "I have nothing to hide, its just videos of me pooping"
When the hole is opening an algorithm decides if its a fart/diarrhea/shit and adds the right amount of water to the bowl. Also the right amount of toilet paper rolls out.
When your session is over it ejects you from the toilet so we have maximum toiletefficiency.
People will call it toiletmaxxing.
I pictured it more like the system Rick had where it just analyzes his stool for abnormalities but that is way more accurate. And by the "correct" amount of tp, way too much, because its made by charmin
Wait till the 2027 gets the seat rectal probe to verify you by your large intestine. Also, they sell the data to health insurance providers.
load more comments
(3 replies)
"Your insurance claim is denied, our algorithm says it's 70% confident your eyes were dilated in a way consistent with taking alcohol. Also, here's your court hearing date"
Nope. Take it right back.
In many states any information not disclosed by the seller is grounds for you canceling the deal. But you would have to look that up for where you live. Or there's black tape, but then you're still paying for a camera you didn't want, aren't using, and weren't told about.
view more: next ›