532
All Cars Sold in the EU Now Require a Camera Aimed at Your Face. It’s Still Not Clear Where That Data Goes (allaboutcookies.org)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
252 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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
[–] -4 points 3 months ago* (6 children)

In EU this would be a massive GDPR breach and cost the company €20 million or 4% of the company's total worldwide annual turnover**

In Germany you face Up to 3 years imprisonment or a fine for transferring data to a third party you weren't authorized to share.

In France Collecting data by fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful means carries up to 5 years.

In California CCPA allows fines up to $7,500 per intentional violation (e.g per customer)

they disclose that shit, just in a very vague way to allow a wide interpretation of what was disclosed.

Firstly misleading disclosures are not valid under both GDPR & CCPA

  • GDPR - Consent must be "freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous"

  • CPRA definies "dark patterns" as a user interface designed to subvert or impair user autonomy, decision-making, or choice and states outright: agreement obtained through use of dark patterns does not constitute consent.

Secondly do you have any evidence of said disclosures?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

    Urgh, come now. This is currently happening and yes it is likely a breach of EU laws, but it is happening now. Multiple auto companies have been caught doing it, its not a theoretical what if. Like many things if the government does not enforce (but instead gives a fine) then it does not matter what the law says.

    You sound like those people saying murder can't happen since it is illegal, but they are just taking the piss.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    You sound like one of their paranoid shut-ins that thinks crime rates are going up, even though every metric shows they are going down.

    Data isn't magic, you don't collect data on everyone's cars without leaving a network footprint.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    has anyone gone to jail through gdpr?

    also, really cool stuff collecting all this info thank you.

    but yeah, i don't see this conversation going any further, laws state one thing, reality is a-whole-nother. especially when the rich are involved.

    i hope to God you are right about all this, i really do, I've just seen it enough times to know...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 months ago

    Not GDPR but the French & German laws which implement GDPR can result in jail time.

    laws state one thing, reality is a-whole-nother.

    Networks aren't magic, if people are sending data from your car it's going to leave a trace, given nobody is showing any traces you might as well be claiming wizards are stalking you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    I'm not here to argue, but after a certain point it becomes a game of "hide the data stream". You'd be amazed at how clever you can be with this, and inspecting the logic of embedded firmware is difficult.

    It often looks something like this (in algorithm or nowadays A.I. functionality):

    "When an accident occurs, keep a copy of the video file. After a random delay after the accident, during normal driving, when you don't feel like you're being observed, upload the video recording to one of these 40 IP addresses in 20–400 byte encrypted chunks over 7 days."

    This isn't theoretical, I've seen it before, software being sneaky like this. Resistant to observation because it can detect an artificial testing environment or network snooping tools. Difficult to prove misbehavior because the data is routed through multiple hops before being stored, and you can't easily inspect encrypted traffic. It might not even be the car manufacturer, it could be whoever is making the cameras. Basically, if it has a data connection and a recording feature, it's not secure.

    What the other person is trying to convey is the common operating rule of most businesses nowadays. Breaking the law is worth it to them if the profits outweigh the consequences. For example if they only just increase profit by 4% per year, a low chance of a 4% fine after say 5 years is absolutely worth it. The only way to curb this is with completely ruinous fines, like "we will fine you 50% of each year this happened, dissolve your regional organisation, or ban you from doing business in the entire regulatory area (in this case the EU)" kind of consequences. Anything else can be optimised away.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent