this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
169 points (97.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

16115 readers
525 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/technology/p/1247241/all-cars-sold-in-the-eu-now-require-a-camera-aimed-at-your-face-its-still-not-clear-wher

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1247209/all-cars-sold-in-the-eu-now-require-a-camera-aimed-at-your-face-its-still-not-clear-wher

Starting July 7, 2026, every new car sold in the European Union must include a driver monitoring camera aimed at your face. Glance at your phone, your kids in the back seat, or the radio for too long, and the car will flash a warning light and sound an alert.

Automakers have known this was coming for years. What they, and EU regulators, have never spelled out is what happens to that footage after the alert goes off.

While the intention behind the new system is difficult to dispute, its implementation has raised several concerns. Early real-world testing suggests the distraction warnings can be overly sensitive and potentially distracting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bstix@feddit.dk 16 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

The article is right to critizice the lack of checking the systems for breaches, but the law is pretty clear on how the data can be used legally.

The law requiring the camera also requires the system to be a closed loop, and also that no personal data is processed.

Since it's illegal to use the data for anything other than showing the warnings inside the car, it is unlikely that it would get used in case of accidents, unless the car manufacturers are willing to admit to breaking the law.

I'm sure insurance companies would also love to see how their customers drive, but I don't think this is in the interest of the car manufacturers who potentially and illegally hold the data.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 4 points 5 hours ago

And it's perfectly secure and transnational corporations are never above the law /s

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 8 points 8 hours ago

Businesses following the law and missing out on an opportunity to sell your data? Not happening.