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 2 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
[–] 6 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Have you ever had to use one? I've had to do it (lot attendant) and not only is it unsanitary if someone else has to drive your car, but it's fucking hard to get the breathalyzer to actually work properly to allow you to start the car and it will go off again while you're driving requiring you to actually breath into it again. It's not a passive thing, you have to have the lung capacity to do it. It can be set off by false positives too. This is the dumbest take.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    Have you ever had to use one?

    No. I don't drink.

    This is the dumbest take.

    Sure, because 32 drunk driving deaths every day is apparently not a problem for Lemmy neckbeards.

    The camera would accurately detect drunk driving patterns, as well as sleepy drivers, dementia drivers, texting drivers, stoned drivers, drivers eating cereal and hot soup, applying makeup, all the stupid shit North American drivers do. If any of that affects your insurance, just don't fucking do that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    You don't have to drink to have used one. I don't drink. I have had to use one. This comment reads like "fuck any service worker who might have to drive your car." Fuck mechanics. Fuck tow truck drivers. Fuck EMS.

    Fuck people who have health problems and can't actually use their lung capacity to blow into the breathalyzer to release the interlock. They'll never have an emergency and maybe have to drive anywhere.

    That's why it's a dumb take. This isn't about drunk driving deaths. Your "assume guilt and fuck everyone else who's not guilty but will be put in danger over it" take is exactly what I said it was.

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

    It's always dangerous when we try to apply technical solutions to what are essentially social problems. Because then the task isn't necessarily "how can I improve my behavior", but it's "how can I get around this tech".

    I have long believed that this interlock nonsense is really just a way to punish poor people for DUIs while making sure that rich people can still continue to not face consequences for them by paying to get out of jail. After all, it would be cheaper for all involved to just suspend someone's license entirely (and impound their car), even after they get out of jail. But then there is no opportunity for rich people to use their connections and wealth to get around the rules.

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

    This is the thing. I'm not against using tech to decide if someone is too drunk to drive. But I am against overreliance on tech to infringe the rights of others and possibly put them in danger in order to protect the public. Especially when it comes from people who don't know how the tech works and have never used it.

    If you can't think critically about how the tech works and what the pros/cons of the tech are, then you don't necessarily deserve to be able to make decisions like this for the masses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent