this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2026
166 points (98.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

16115 readers
537 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.

top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

What they, and EU regulators, have never spelled out is what happens to that footage after the alert goes off.

That's actually not true.

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a regulation that harmonizes national data privacy laws throughout the EU and enhances the protection of all EU residents with respect to their personal data. This harmonization creates new rights for individuals and a set of stronger and clearer rules for businesses. The GDPR applies to all companies handling the personal data of EU residents, including companies established outside the EU if they offer goods or services to EU residents or monitor their behaviour. The GDPR entered into force on May 25, 2018.

Updated:

Updated definition of personal data: Location data and online identifiers are now expressly included in the definition of personal data.

Comprehensive record-keeping obligation: Records are used to demonstrate compliance.

Stricter definition of consent: Specific, informed and unambiguous consent must be freely given by a statement or by clear affirmative action. Individuals can withdraw their consent at any time.

New rights for individuals: Individuals have the right to access, transfer, correct and restrict their personal data and to ask that it be destroyed.

New requirement to appoint a data protection officer: Companies processing personal data on a large scale must appoint a data protection officer.

New data breach notification requirement: Competent supervisory authorities within the EU must generally be informed within 72 hours of a personal data breach.

Diversified toolkit of mechanisms: The toolkit is provided to lawfully transfer data outside the EU; the transfer is subject to specific conditions and safeguards.

Penalties for non-compliance: Companies would be subject to fines of up to 4% of global annual turnover or €20 million, whichever is higher.

Early real-world testing suggests the distraction warnings can be overly sensitive and potentially distracting.

Also not true.

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

EFF or some other privacy org should set up a shop that specializes in removing this cruft from new vehicles, to bait a legal fight with the government or car industry.

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 7 points 6 hours ago (2 children)

All I know is that this technology is universally loathed in the US.

I don't expect it to last.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 3 points 4 hours ago

You're destined for surprise.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

All I know is that this technology is universally loathed in the US.

So we're looking to the USA for good ideas now? US universally loathed seatbelt laws.

How many people die in car crashes in the US every hour?

  1. <0.5

  2. 1-2

  3. 3-4

  4. Over 4

[–] warm@kbin.earth 33 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

5-25% of car crashes come from distracted drivers huh? How about you provide good viable alternatives to driving? That's how you best solve road deaths. More trains, trams, buses and cycling routes.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Where I live has a pretty good bike route along an old railway to the next town over and yet still loads of people opt to drive. Despite driving taking longer due to all the traffic!

I suppose quite a few people do cycle too tough. But it just seems crazy to me that so many willingly sit in that traffic every day.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

The solution is certainly not to replace rails with trails.

We just need to ban cars on half the roads.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, kinda wish they replaced it with a tram line tbh. Urban sprawl between 2 towns that are now 1 continuous urban area, original train line was a few stations at each end but not much in the middle and the current route has a bus that stops all the way down it. A tram would be great for that.

[–] bstix@feddit.dk 16 points 11 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 4 hours ago

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

[–] Sabata11792@ani.social 7 points 6 hours ago

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

[–] Drusas@fedia.io 33 points 13 hours ago

I was thinking about how this technology is supposed to be forced on us in the US before long just a couple of hours ago, as I drove down a highway at twilight, with deer frequently spotted on the side of the road. It occurred to me that I would probably be flagged as not paying attention because I was regularly darting my eyes to the sides of the road very briefly for an extended period of time. Because I don't want to kill or be killed by deer while driving.

[–] halfapage@lemmy.world 19 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Will it be illegal to drive around with the camera accidentally punctured by a nail? Asking for a european.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

A little piece of black electrical tape does wonders for these systems.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Depends on how the system is enabled. It can be enabled for theft control, so blocking the camera will not allow starting.

[–] akwd169@sh.itjust.works 1 points 48 minutes ago* (last edited 47 minutes ago)

Little peice of paper with my face printed on it taped in front of the camera with the most focused facial expression I can summon

[–] pHr34kY@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (3 children)

Design rules only apply at the time of sale. After that, the car only needs to meet roadworthy requirements.

You should technically be able to gut the ECU and install a motec or haltech unit intended for a racecar. Start it with an ignition barrel like it's 1999.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 1 points 4 hours ago

That's a massive project as the ECU is likely quite custom to the vehicle and it's electronics, while the engine likely relies on those electronics. It's an expensive specialist job that would take iterations to complete reliably. As I suggested in another comment, perhaps an initiative for a large privacy advocacy group.

[–] halfapage@lemmy.world 6 points 10 hours ago

in what country?

where I live certain safety elements have to be operational for a car to be legaly operating in public traffic (which is good)

the question is if surveillance devices will be considered mandatory safety elements

[–] itsralC@lemmy.zip 2 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Still needs to pass inspection, and it won't if their OBD thingy says X part (eg. the camera) is broken.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago

North America mostly does not inspect vehicles for safety.

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Is that an inspection by the dealer that sold the car, or anyone else? In the UK and I assume many other places the roadworthiness test can be done at loads of different places and there is much less that they check. Pretty sure you don't even need a functional speedometer although they will recommend fixing it.

[–] Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk 1 points 5 hours ago

I don't know if it's still a thing these days but when I was younger some of the lad I knew claimed to reinstall the cat and mid muffler for the MOT then reinstall their "race" parts.

I also might be wrong here but I think if police claim the car is unsafe then you have book the MOT to test if it's unsafe. Not sure where that leaves the driver though, can they drive it home first? No idea.

I guess where it becomes a serious issue if when the driver of a bypassed car is in an accident and it goes to court. The car was seized at the place of the incident so never had features re-enabled.

[–] Humanius@lemmy.world 9 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

I recently accepted a new job, and it will come with a new company car.

If I'm unlucky enough to have a model that was sold after this rule goes into effect, I'm going to be taping up the camera.. I don't want a camera pointed at my face for hours, no matter how well-intentioned.

Fuck cars and all, but this will be a privacy nightmare.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 3 hours ago

You can't do that to the microphones that are recording everything you're saying and uploading that metadata to the cloud for sale to the data brokers

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 hours ago

As much as I’d like to see that work, the way the warning systems work (to my knowledge) is if it doesn’t detect your face for any reason, it first issues a warning, then and harsher warning, and in some cases will consider you “incapacitated” and slow the car to a halt. Mercedes had a system like that decades ago.

[–] SuluBeddu@feddit.it 15 points 13 hours ago

With half the population priced out of new cars, possibly permanently, this will be fun to watch unfold

[–] D_C@sh.itjust.works 4 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I'll draw a nose and eyes on my arse cheeks then take a picture of it as I bend over and spread . Tape that picture over the camera.

Enjoy snooping a look at that, nosey cunts.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 1 points 3 hours ago

You think the people who buy your data from databrokers don't enjoy fucking people up the ass?

They will enjoy looking at this

[–] StillAlive@piefed.world 4 points 10 hours ago
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 11 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

This...is good! Carbrain has long argued that the issue with vehicle collision and vehicle violence against pedestrian is not due to the insane amount of car on the road or the speed of a car being driven or the size of it, but all due to driver's inability to control themselves and get themselves distracted so often, or being impatient, so now they're constantly being watched, everyone should be safe now. Right?

[–] UkrainianBull@reddthat.com 16 points 12 hours ago (1 children)
[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 11 points 11 hours ago

Hi, give me your bank detail, and i will offload some of my money to you.

[–] itkovian@lemmy.world 4 points 12 hours ago

To me this is what incompetant governance, that tries and fails to even look competent, looks like. Our politicians are blind to real systemic issues underlying them. Someday, the reality check will come to collect. I hope it's sooner, rather than later.