Technology

Im sorry, but this is just silly.

If a camera rocords your face, it can be used to identity you. Thus it falls under GDPR regulations as PII. That requires that the footage is kept no longer than needed for its purpose and that what happens to the data is spelled out exactly. My car already comes with a privacy policy that you can read.

So the answer is: Anything that can be used to identify you will deleted - or rather it will never get stored.

And the reason this regulation doesn’t spell out what happens to the data is that it doesn’t need to because GDPR covers ALL data already.

The EU is guilty of many things, but this is solely about increasing driver awareness and preventing deaths and injury - and it’s working, with each generation of requirements, less people die.

The data destination should be mandatory disclosure, not a mystery.

So if your teenager bangs their partner in the back seat do you sue your insurance or the automaker for recording child pornography?

This is for cars where everything is being put on touchscreens so you have to take your eyes off of the road to control it?

You guys are hilarious with your "I'd just keep/buy an old car." The EU is also making it illegal to repair older vehicles and forcing people to replace "outdated" models with more environmentally friendly ones. China did the same thing with a buyback and destroy of all their outdated vehicles. Their aren't going to be any old vehicles. The only way to address this is to demand privacy rights and protection NOW.

before long people are gonna want to buy nothing but used 70s and 80s carbuerated shitboxes just to avoid all this shit.

10 bucks says all this data is being fed back to insurance companies.

Only buying pre 2018 cars from now on, I will have a Toyota collection that will run forever

The primary purpose of AI systems is mass surveillance.

This was on the news today on tv and they showed a camera filming the driver, watching his upper body.

I bought a car from 2023 without all this shit so I'm very happy. Newer electric cars also beep when you go over the speed limit, which would drive me nuts.

What if you tape the camera ?

Sounds like more ways for insurance companies to a) charge you more based on behaviors they arbitrarily determine are “bad”, and b) take your payments for years/decades then never pay out because they say something you did on video makes any accident your fault based on some term buried in the 500 page contract you obviously didn’t read all of.

They already do “a” by taking vehicle blackbox info uploaded by dealers or via telemetry and increasing your rate via their risk analysis. Note, your rates never go down for good driving. Only up.

Unless it can prove that it is running entirely locally with no outside connection, it can fuck off.

Every new car. So congrats on further destroying the new car market, good job.

The mandate says nothing about cameras specifically.

I thought it did as well but it only specifies this :

Driver drowsiness and attention warning and advanced driver distraction warning systems shall be designed in such a way that those systems do not continuously record nor retain any data other than what is necessary in relation to the purposes for which they were collected or otherwise processed within the closed-loop system. Furthermore, those data shall not be accessible or made available to third parties at any time and shall be immediately deleted after processing. Those systems shall also be designed to avoid overlap and shall not prompt the driver separately and concurrently or in a confusing manner where one action triggers both systems.

Don't get me wrong, manufacturers are going to have a fucking field day with all of the shit they'll try and get in under this banner of "safety" and they will almost certainly work their monetisation shenanigans in around this.

It might seem like that wording prohibits data collection, but it doesn't cover all the bases a team of well paid lawyers would be able to come up with. Or they could just do what they normally do and just ignore the "no data collection" part and pay the ~~cost of doing business tax~~ fine and rake in multiples of that fine in profits.

My point is , it doesn't specify cameras, so theoretically a company could come up with a non-face-scanning way of doing this and use that instead.

will they ?....fuck no...but they could if they wanted to.

Which is arguably worse.

edit : A note to say that I'm not arguing against the safety aspects of this , they might be fully valid, i'm arguing that it'll be abused for profit in any way the companies think will give them a positive ROI.

No way in hell I'm buying a car with that BS. I'll ride a bike first.

How many more years before me never owning a car and never driving is enough to put me on a list?

So, a couple of things...

For a real time warning system, there's no need to actually record anything. Monitoring the video feed with no record capability should be fine.

Second, this sounds super easy to defeat with a printed photo card and a couple of Googley Eyes. 👀

I'd rather have the option for a factory installed dashcam or at least a mount for me to install one.