Technology

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Your linked article talks about the need to research the tech to stop impaired driving.

It's not mandatory yet, as best as I can read it for now.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (7 children)

It's not an article. It is a report to Congress detailing attempted compliance with a new mandate.

It looks like the mandatory compliance date has been pushed back. So no cameras next year, but if you read the recent report, that is the direction they are going.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2026-03/Report-to-Congress-Advanced-Impaired-Driving-Prevention-Technology.pdf

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (6 children)

They want it, duh. It don't mean they'll get it. Of course we can't sleep on this either, so your warnings are fair. Thank you.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (5 children)

They already are. Driver monitoring using cameras that watch your face 24/7, though not mandatory, are already shipping in cars from Subaru, Toyota, Ford, GM, and Tesla. It may be more, but those are the ones I know of. You're welcome, good luck.

hideshow 5 child comments

parent

[–] willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Guess which cameras are getting the hammer or the duct tape?

Or buy used.

If this disease spreads, we'll need to have a talk with the CEOs and the big investors.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (3 children)

They're hooked into the drive system. That would just shut the car down. You'd have to also significantly alter the software and the modem. I'm with you though. I'll be buying used and just be swapping the drive system for electric whenever that becomes the norm.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago* (2 children)

That's free money for the buyer in a lawsuit.

We get all the downsides of private ownership with none of the upsides. Meanwhile, the billionaires get all the upsides of private ownership with none of the downsides. Fuck that!

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago (1 child)

You agree to the cameras when you buy the car, and it's a system that is about to be mandatory under federal law? What would you sue for?

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] willington@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I can operate the car as I see fit once I take posession of it.

Whether the camera can continuing spying is up to me if the car is mine.

If the vendor has other ideas, they will lose in court.

The best they can do is try to condition services like warranty repairs, or software updates on my compliance, but that has to be tested. They may be compelled to provide some minimum level of service no matter what.

In other words, what's mine is mine to control.

They would need to rent the car instead of selling it if they didn't like letting go of it.

I am already generous. I don't feel the slightest need to be polite or generous to someone or some entity, or a process, I didn't like.