This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Would think that limiting engine power would be better way to go. We don't really need 400hp+ cars that go from 0-100 in 3 sec. If I had such a car when I just started driving,I probably wouldn't be writing this.....
Also enforce carmode on mobiles - black out mobile screen when car is moving.
Finally, alle the beeps and blinking warning -toooo many already. I got warning fatigue, I just ignore the message and get irritated
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. 👀
"Super Easy to Defeat" is the now. They don't care about that.
They just need you to accept it, and move along.
In a few years time, it will not be "super easy to defeat" but will be standard practice and accepted law.
By that stage it will likely be too late to do anything. They will have tied it in with chat control and all of our data.
Can you imagine the freedom that will be discovered 50 years from now in a trend, when people decide to ditch their personal devices and live like they used to 70, 80 years ago (maybe even 60).
Clarkson was a step ahead of us this time.
Soon enough, If you defeat or try to defeat the government surveillance system, it will probably be against the law
How many more years before me never owning a car and never driving is enough to put me on a list?
I won't own anything made after 2015... That's when LTE chips started becoming standard in cars...
I told my wife, my next car will have a carbuerator.
A carburetor is a step too far, you invite misery, do you hate yourself? Take care, lol.
But yep would love to see more folks keeping old cars running, I won't be taking the plunge into "~mortgage and routinely operate my own bubble of dystopian hellscape", think I'ma pretty much lifetime "pass" on that flavor of nastiness.
Every new car. So congrats on further destroying the new car market, good job.
No way in hell I'm buying a car with that BS. I'll ride a bike first.
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.
Can you put tape over the camera?
Or disconnect it? What happens when it no longer functions? Will I need to fix this to get my car to run again?
I bet the system would sound an alarm if you did that.
I'm willing to bet there's an ignition interlock that would keep the car from starting if the camera is disabled.
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?
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.
So if your teenager bangs their partner in the back seat do you sue your insurance or the automaker for recording child pornography?
Nope, fuck-no, not even close. Never going to fucking happen. I have dashcams inside (pointed out) but I keep the mic muted because I don't need any of my ramblings recorded publicly.... (I also have it set not to record speed.. for obvious reasons)
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.
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.
Unless it can prove that it is running entirely locally with no outside connection, it can fuck off.
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.
My bet is all these devices in new cars will be all from one company. It will be up to automakers to put the cameras in the dash but the guts will all be the exact same. They will plug in the computer and all other sensors available. If the car doesn't have that sensor they can shut it off making these scalable to the "trim level" of the car.
My utv detects the seatbelt. If you don't click in the seatbelt, it limits speed to like 10mph and limits the hp. Sometimes I'm tooling in the yard or getting it unstuck and I need full HP but also need to get in and out of the vehicle. Someone made a cute little bypass that took 5 minutes to install. Works like a charm. Now, when I'm driving on a road, I buckle up, but when I'm plowing the snowy driveway I don't.
How do I learn to be a FOSS developer so I can start working on firmware/software replacements for vehicles?
Score one more point for fucking bikes, Jesus...
Now about all those CCTVs
I get so tired of bikes being brought up every time a car is mentioned. They're not at all an option for me or anyone who lives near me, and millions of others.
