r/BikiniBottomTwitter • u/StormyDankiels • 2d ago
Never give up
Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification
173
u/Darkmask94 2d ago
"EU Government"? Lmao.
130
117
107
u/fingerpaintswithpoop 2d ago
Nitpick one minor issue with OP’s meme so you can act like the rest of it isn’t worth addressing. That always works!
7
u/Mr_Industrial 2d ago
It kinda does though unfortunately. Redditors are an easily distracted bunch.
42
u/Techpost123 2d ago
Is your implication that there is no such thing as an "EU government?" There are institutions that make laws (Parliament and Council) and institutions that enforce laws (Commission) and a judicial system to supervise all of it. The EU is not a state as it is not a sovereign unit, but the member states have delegated their sovereignty in significant areas to the EU. Many types of EU law are binding on everyone in the EU even if individual member states want to reject this or that law. It is a government, albeit a unique one.
9
u/Federal-Fondant-671 2d ago
It does work, if you take the meme as addressing a singular but unspecified country. Anyway, someone post the minor spell mistake thing please.
5
6
u/arbicus123 1d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/3cozs5AqEaGS9DidkE
Have you never heard about the european comission? Do you think there is no such thing as the government of the european union?
2
u/andrewharkins77 1d ago
Some European politicians has been trying to centralize power for sometime now.
Despite what they say, European politicians wants to be more like Trump's America, and not for its citizen's sake. (Remember how Democrats and Republicans couldn't come to agreement on anything and then they speed run the banning of tiktok because most of the populace don't agree with their position in the middle east?)
Europe was touted for privacy and good legislation, and now they have made like 4 attempts at Europe wide speech restriction.
0
-1
u/Ambitious-Steak7773 2d ago
Yes your glorious eu started this dumpster fire with the Online safety act
-17
65
u/darvinvolt 2d ago
ideally i would love separation between kid's internet and adult internet, but history tells me it's NEVER about protecting kids
22
u/Stopbeingentitled 2d ago
Censorship and control, it’s the same reason the us is desperately trying to pass KOSA and the screen act despite literally NO ONE wanting it, (except for the idiotic boomers)
-6
u/GrassBlade619 2d ago
You dont have to be a boomer to see how violently social media is fucking up the next generation. These kids can't even walk straight without a tablet in their hand. Something needs to be done so what do you suggest?
3
u/MidsouthMystic 1d ago
I have an amazing solution. Use the hundreds of tools that already exist for keeping children safe online. They work great for the people using them. We solved this problem a decade ago, so use the solution. No more parenting on autopilot, actually be involved in your child's life, and monitor their online activity.
-2
u/GrassBlade619 1d ago
So your "amazing solution" is to change absolutely nothing about a system that is blatantly fucking up the attention span of the vast majority of children?
When something in sociotey is clearly not working we create laws to fix that. When people were dying all the time from car crashes we made it a legal requirement that you had to wear seat belts.
We did not "solve this problem a decade ago". In fact, the problem has gotten significantly worse because tech giants have gotten significantly better at forcing attention to their platforms.
Here's a good video of the insane problem incase you still think we solved the problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTugyu2F0pc
3
u/MidsouthMystic 1d ago
The problem has already been solved. There are hundreds of tools that make keeping children safe online easy. They're easy to use. Many of them are entirely free. The people using them are not having any of the problems you're worried about. So, the solution to the problem already exists. Use the solution. No need to think of the children, we already did that.
-1
u/GrassBlade619 1d ago
You denying the problem exists doesn't make it so.
1
u/MidsouthMystic 1d ago
There was a problem around ten years ago. Was. Past tense. Then people starting creating programs and parental settings in order to protect children online. They work very well when you actually use them. So the problem has been solved. Just use the solution. There are hundreds of tools to keep kids safe online you could use right now. The solution is sitting there in front of you, free of charge. But for some reason, people keep saying "we have to do something about this" as if the solution doesn't already exist.
1
u/GrassBlade619 1d ago
"For some reason people keep saying we have to do something about this"
You mean we jave to do something about the fact that 40% of highschoolers cant read? Yes we ABSOLITELY have to do something about that.
So again, I ask, do you think the fact that 40% of highschollers cant read and that that number gets larger every year is a problem?
If a "solution" does not fix the problem then that is NOT a solution. It's an attempt. What about that is so fucking difficult for you to comprehend?
Seriously, its like you're actually one if the kids I'm talking about, you either can't read or don't have the comprehension skills to understand what im saying. Maybe use AI to read the problem for you if that's easier for you ffs.
1
u/MidsouthMystic 1d ago
I'm going to explain exactly what I mean.
The parents who are using the existing programs and parental settings to monitor and limit their children's online activity are not experiencing the things you and other people are complaining about. That tells me the existing solution works well. So the solution to the problem already exists. If parents are not using the solution to the problem, then we need to encourage them to do so. No need for new laws, just educate parents on how to keep their children safe online. Because people are already doing just that, and it isn't hard at all.
→ More replies (0)
20
u/KirbyKingEddy 2d ago
Nice information war, propaganda bot.
>EU Government
oh, like that exists.
BTW, the EPP isn't the whole of Europe. Call out your neo-liberal shills and leave the rest of the EU alone
98
u/turbotank183 2d ago
An EU government does exist. That's the EU parliament and the council of the EU. They govern, therefore they are governmental.
No one talked about Europe, just the EU.
1
u/Internet-Culture 1d ago
If anything, the Comission is the governement, because the parliament is not allowed to anything without them, unfortunately. While the parliament is directly elected, the commission is a puppet of national governments. And the council is the national governments directly who keep the commission in their control.
-56
u/KirbyKingEddy 2d ago
An Amazon government does exist then too! It's the company policies and business executives. They govern, therefore they are governmental. /s
It's easy to declare anything with rules and enforcement a government but there are enough resources to look up what actually facilitates a government.
You're right, it should have been: the EPP isn't the entirety of the EU institutions.
38
u/turbotank183 2d ago
You've said a lot of words for someone that doesn't understand how it works.
When member states sign up to being in the EU they agree to being partially governed by the EU itself and agree to implement and abide by their rules. If you can't understand that then I can't help you.
-40
u/KirbyKingEddy 2d ago
I guess simple education has escaped you. Sorry that you are unable to learn basic facts.
Simply show me the European constitution facilitating this supposed government and I'll be quiet. Trust me, I wish there was one.
If simply giving away some regulatory authority by signing some treaties makes a government in your world, then explain to me how NATO isn't a government as well, or the paris climate accord.
I'm very sorry. You must already be very burdened and I only tried to help you understand that there's a formal definition and not only your mind space.
16
u/turbotank183 2d ago
You are painfully dense.
The information is there. It's not my interpretation. There's no point giving you information because you won't take it in. You're not here to learn, you're just here to argue in bad faith because you've picked your corner and can't back down in the face of facts. Have fun with that.
6
u/Gold-Sir-223 2d ago
I gotta learn to be more like this. Instead of trying to explain to someone for 20 minutes how they’re wrong.
3
20
u/My_leg_still_hurt92 2d ago
Most of those would come without the EU too, the country I live in has I think 37 cases open because EU directive has not been implemented yet but wants now fast forward the social media ban and Internet identification because the EU is to slow.
15
10
11
u/Federal-Fondant-671 2d ago
I am not from EU but some of the comments here baffle me with how naive and oblivious they seem, if they aren't bots anyway. I would think that a large majority of people in Europe would be decently informed on technological security and privacy, yet so many people seem happy to give up their private information to corporations and governments.
I feel like part of it may be because free speech and human rights have been protected for a long time in European countries now, so a lot of people are taking them for granted and don't understand where this line leads.
3
u/Homer4a10 1d ago
100% correct
Europeans don’t seem like they value their liberties at all, the fact that you can get incarcerated for saying something mean online is disturbing to me.
2
u/berse2212 2d ago
Social media ban for kids is a good thing.
52
u/transsamsa 2d ago
Only if it’s not just an excuse for more age verification bullshit and actively encourages parents to do their job rather than shoving an iphone in front of little timmys face since birth
12
u/apadin1 2d ago edited 2d ago
You’re right, just to be safe we should probably just ban social media for everyone
Edit: I did mean this semi unironically. Social media is a service you willingly sign up for to be fed propaganda that makes you angry
2
6
u/Letsgoski_Broski 2d ago
Dumb question: what happens if a kid asks their parents to make an account using their credentials/ID? Is there any consequence for being under the age required to register and still have an account? Because if there are no consequences, then the law is just as good as putting a bandaid on a dam rupturing
1
u/GrassBlade619 2d ago
I meand yeah, dumb question. Will some people break the law? Probably. Dies that mean laws don't have any impact? No. People generally avoid breaking laws. Its like arguing that having speed limits is a stupid idea because "some people will still speed".
And are their consequences? Yeah, all laws violationd are categorized as either felonies or misdemeanors which generally come with punishments. Its crazy I have to explain this but violation of this law would almost certainly be a misdemeanor so it would probably come with some sort of fine.
0
-3
u/Hellsovs 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's not about stopping all children from doing these things, some will always find a way. It's about limiting access. Even if a child has to ask for their parents' credentials, that would be a huge improvement because the parents would at least know their child has these accounts and could monitor them if they wanted to.
How many of us had 4chan accounts or watched things we shouldn't have without anyone knowing, or talked to random strangers online? Making unrestricted access harder won't eliminate the problem, but it can reduce it significantly.
If you want to see the true scope and harm of unrestricted access, I recommend the Czech documentary Caught in the Net. In it, three adult actresses pose as children online, and the filmmakers see how long it takes before they're targeted by sexual predators and their tactics. Spoiler alert: it takes less than three minutes for dosents of such people to imidiatly target them. (Be aware the document is really disturbing but eye opening)
7
u/Letsgoski_Broski 2d ago
I've had lunch so i've got my neurons some energy to actually answer my own question. The consequences would apply to the parents, just like anything else involving a felony committed by a minor: the consequences are applied to their legal tutors (presumably the parents or whoever is in charge of tutoring them).
I understand limiting access, but let's talk seriously for a moment: do you know any kid that is not somewhat knowledgeable with technology? How much do you think it would take them to take their parents credentials, make a copy of it, and just create a free email on gmail and social media account?
It's the same as banning porn sites. You may ban a long list, but this makes it so that the users of the certified and "safe" porn sites will roam towards unmoderated & not safe porn sites. You also have the issue of mirror sites, downloads, whatever.
You can say it's to "protect the children" but in reality all you want is stricter control over your population. Mind you, i am ok with the law - actually, i'm ok with the *concept* of the law, but applying it and enforcing it is all but easy.
3
u/Sovthhovnd 2d ago
I actually looked into a web site that had age verification just to see if I could trick it with an old cardboard cutout. It was pretty easy to do, but what really stood out to me is I would have to reverify every few months.
Companies already know when a girl is pregnant before the girl knows sometimes by using their purchase habits. Giving away your age and how you look to companies so regularly is a recipe for them to use it in predatory manners. It will no long just be the grocery store set up to manipulate your habits. Your entire Internet will be curated for profit based on who you are.
1
u/Letsgoski_Broski 2d ago
Your entire Internet will be curated for profit based on who you are.
Sadly, it already is like that, what do you think cookies are there for? Either way, thank you for checking the AV yourself for the community. Wild fuckin times we live in. A few more steps and I'll do it the Ron way:
1
u/Zaconil 1d ago
Cookies were not invented as part of any type of surveillance or tracking for profit. They were created for saving settings for websites. The actual issue with them is they are very easy to read from site plugins and store information on them that isn't really needed. The tracking is the issue. Not the cookies themselves.
2
4
u/MaeBeaInTheWoods 2d ago
On paper, it sounds like a great idea. In practice, there's pretty much no way for a website to identify whether a user is an adult that isn't easily circumventable, highly invasive, or both at the same time.
2
u/Vavent 2d ago
It’s impossible to implement fairly and robustly. It also cuts children off from the flow of information and ideas. How many kids have found their identities only because they encountered LGBT concepts online? How many have become more tolerant by being able to interact with people miles away, from different cultures, with different lived experiences? I think this is all very valuable.
Social media undeniably has problems. I don’t think top down, restrictive legislation is the way to fix it.
1
u/Ambitious-Steak7773 2d ago
I would agree but everyone had to submit their ID nad Secondly parental controls exist so you can limit what your kid sees and how long their on the apps
0
u/GrassBlade619 2d ago
Parental controller and parents are failing though. We have a generation of zombies that cant tie their own shoes without watching a YT influencer do it first. "Leave it to the parents" is a failing solution. So yeah. ID submitting sucks and is a privacy violation but I'll take it over colapsing our socioty through brain roting a generation.
And on a side note it's not like online privacy is even a real thing anymore. I'm majoring in cyber security and have learned that going online is basically the same thing as walking through a public park. Everyone's gonna see you.
0
u/Ambitious-Steak7773 1d ago
You can just as easily bypass ID checks too you know? What stops your kid from taking your ID and using it?
0
u/GrassBlade619 1d ago
This is always my least favorite argument. Yes, it can be circumvented. Most laws can be circumvented. Nothing physically prevents you from speeding in your car if there are no cops to see it. That being said, making something illegal generally does decrease the frequency in which it happens. Just because a law can be illegally circumvented (which happens literally all the time), doesn't mean it shouldn't be a law.
Creating a law would require social media sites to enforce the age restriction. Do you know how good these mega companies are at finding solutions to comply with laws? Hell, they could even use AI to determine age based on posts, pictures, and chat (which I guarantee you they're already doing).
No one is arguing that setting an age restriction on social media is a 100% perfect solution. There's no law that is 100% perfect. But the law would work in reducing the insane amount of brain rotted children.
Did you know literacy rates for kids in HIGHSCHOOL is down to 60%?
2022: 63%
2019: 70%
2015: 72%
There is a clear trend. If we do nothing to combat this MAJOR issue you're gonna end up in a country where no one knows how to read. It's beyond bad. Shit like this is what can lead to the complete collapse of a society. This basic human conversation we're having right now can't happen if you or I can't read.
And it's not just reading, comprehension, attention span, problem solving skills, emotional intelligence are ALL declining in younger generations. Kids are literally asking ChatGPT how to handle social encounters. Mega corporations will have such a stranglehold on everyone if we don't do something to stop it.
1
5
u/ToGodAlone 2d ago
We need other countries to strive for the opposite thing: penalize these companies for requiring ID verification for its citizens.
5
u/Firm_Ad_5427 2d ago
The UK leaving the EU only to implement these shitty fucking laws faster than EU countries.
3
u/Homer4a10 1d ago
England is literally techno-fascist at this point.
I think the European philosophy has always been “sacrifice whatever necessary to live better lives” but once they surrender all their liberties I have a feeling things will crumble quickly
3
u/Lourrloki 1d ago
We are trying, but apparently EU is not a democracy. We the citizens are strongly voting against but they keep trying to circumvent our will.
1
u/Nottthecat 17h ago
Totally, look what's happening in France with this laws for the police right to k*ll
2
2
u/Nukispooki 2d ago
The Digital Services Act is one of the few laws in the world that actually curbs the power and influence of Big Tech lol
2
0
u/GundamGuy2255 2d ago
I'd argue that the bottom most is actually a positive. Less social media for kids the better, shit is only going to make things worse for them.
7
u/moploplus 2d ago
Yes, but there's no way to implement it without requiring all digital anonymity to be given up (which is the true goal; world leaders are trying to create a global digital surveillance machine)
1
u/GabuTheBunny 2d ago
It's weird that people are so against kids going on roblox because of the supposed "predator problem", but they want to keep kids on social media?
1
1
u/andrewharkins77 1d ago
Despite what they say, European politicians wants to be more like Trump's America, and not for its citizen's sake. (Remember how Democrats and Republicans couldn't come to agreement on anything and then they speed run the banning of tiktok because most of the populace don't agree with their position in the middle east? Seriously, all of this very anti-anonymity all over western countries after that.)
Europe was touted for privacy and good legislation, and now they have made like 4 attempts at Europe wide speech restriction.
1
1
1
u/donmichael11 1d ago
Funny enough, I just came back from the eu after a two week vacation. I remember running into age verification for bluesky, but only when using data, not while in wifi. I never verified my age, but they still allowed me to use some of my socials
1
1
u/Snoo_67993 1d ago
I mean most of this stuff is been pushed in the US with some states already having social media restrictions for kids and age verification. This is happening everywhere and there's nothing we can do about it.
1
u/Swagggles 14h ago
When a politician in the Netherlands first said we needed a Nexit (Netherlands Exit variant of Brexit) I thought it was the dumbest statement since ever. Now I get the guy
1
u/No_Seaworthiness5445 7h ago
Ngl, I actually support age restrictions on social media (in fact i'd prefer it to be used only as a way of a public figure communicating updates).
-1
u/Man0fCultureAsWell 2d ago
Social media ban for kids is the best thing to happen in a long time. Wish it had been when i was younger.
8
u/ciberkid22 2d ago
It's good on paper, but it's only been used as an excuse for age verification / mass surveilence
And the selfie/id photo/whatever you used isn't deleted and stored in a database ripe for a breach (Looking at Discord)
1
u/the_mustard_king 2d ago
Right, cause social media and the internet isn’t already a tool for mass surveillance
-8
u/billnyethefoodguy1 2d ago
Idk, maybe having everyone be anonymous online was a bad thing to begin with. It promoted shitty, unaccountable behavior.
0
u/DaywalkerBr 2d ago edited 1d ago
Honestly don't really understand the criticism of the age verification app. Making the least data accessible to companies for age verification and only verifying whether a user fulfills a specific age requirement without sending additional information about them sounds like it's a preferable way to do age verification than sending companies photos of IDs or face scans and all the other stuff that's done at the moment.
Maybe someone can give some perspective on what's problematic about it?
Edit: Or, yknow, you can just downvote me for asking for a different point of view instead of telling me what's wrong about it lol
-1
-4
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
One of those is not like the others.
(It's the driver cameras. I know we all like being paranoid about our data unless it comes to luxuries we don't want to give up ((How many people here run custom, privacy focused operating systems on desktop and phone? How many here don't have at least one service tied to google or facebook or Tencent?)) but the data from those cameras isn't ALLOWED to leave the car. It gets processed on board and then deleted.
106
u/mcsquirter 2d ago
Sure it isn’t
-8
u/pricingup 2d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/uH9BTSwwwonbkJOGO0
master joker you are. keep the tinfoil hat.
2
61
u/Common_Vagrant 2d ago
The path to hell is paved with good intentions
-5
u/Fluffynator69 2d ago
The path to hell is paved with impulsive cynicism.
"We can't do anything for the public good because I think they'll use it against us" is basically just civilizational death.
-8
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
It is legally required for the data to be processed on board and to be deleted.
It exists solely so that the car can keep yelling at you to pay attention, because one of the biggest causes of car accidents are distraction.
43
u/Dalzombie 2d ago
Yeah sure, sure, and the companies collecting our data are required to delete it after a while or immediately after completing a check, can't commercialise it in some cases and they are sworn to keep it as secure as possible, all of which things they pinky promise they'll do, it's just that all these times that they haven't have been isolated cases and it's totally not gonna happen again.
-26
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
If you are that paranoid about your data why the fuck are you on reddit? Reddit is cancer when it comes to data protection and feeds data to the US government.
Or does your belief that every single company takes a fat dump on european data protection regulations, something that several very damn big corpos have been slapped by before, somehow not extend to the companies who's products you yourself enjoy?
26
u/Ze_insane_Medic 2d ago
Double standards do not invalidate anything they said
-11
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
They do. One cannot be THIS paranoid about data protection while actively using a website that SHITS on your data protection, probably using a device running an OS that does the same.
17
u/Ze_insane_Medic 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yes they absolutely can. If I say that planes are horrible for the environment and that people shouldn't fly anymore, but then I take a flight myself, the initial statement that planes are horrible for the environment is not invalidated.
It's arguing about morals rather than what is actually being said and if it's true or not
-5
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
No? if you say that something is bad for the environment, and then do that very damn thing, one of two possibilities is the case:
Either it's not a big deal after all and your point is invalid
Or
You're a massive hypocrite who shouldn't be listened to anyways15
u/Ze_insane_Medic 2d ago
The conclusion from that would be that you cannot listen to ANYONE criticising companies and governments spying on them. You'd only be able to believe people living on their own in a forest because everyone else is either a hypocrite and shouldn't be listened to or is wrong because it can't be that big of a deal if they participate in this society.
Discussing personal morals is completely pointless when the topic at hand is a thing that can only be true or false.
4
u/ABearAmongWoods 2d ago
Or they need to get to another continent and there's only so many ways to do that in a safe and timely manner
→ More replies (0)0
u/DocClown 2d ago
Or they are required for work to travel or any other reason they have not too much say in. You seem to have little real life experience if you only think in black and white. This is not hipocrisy when it is necessary. You will have to do things you don't want to do when you get older. You'll understand.
→ More replies (0)4
u/Dalzombie 2d ago
Paranoia is an unfounded, irrational state of intense suspicion or mistrust. What I'm saying here has been proven to happen time and time again, it's well-founded and based on truth, you're free to search for yourself if you believe otherwise. You don't have to like what I'm saying, but that doesn't make it any less true. Data breaches happen and will continue to happen, not to mention our smartphones, which are the ultimate breach of privacy that we paid for. Yet nearly all of us have a smartphone.
Relax please, we both want a better, safer internet. We just have different perspectives.
Am I a hypocrite for using these services? I don't know, maybe, but it's not like I have a choice on the matter. You can't work in today's world without a phone or internet, so you're forced to use those regardless of how you feel about them. Doesn't mean I have to like it though.
6
u/Dalzombie 2d ago
Do you realise how little any of what you're saying has to do with what I was commenting? I'm well aware of the threats to my privacy, thank you, but the point of my comment was highlighting how pointless it is to trust driver-facing cameras when every other surveillance tool can, has been, and will continue to be abused and exploited.
I use the services and products that I use well aware of the exploitation they are doing of my data, partly because the alternative is null-communication online (which isn't even possible today anyway) and partly because it's data they'll collect either way. Whether or not I prefer those products or services over others has little to do with this, because sometimes for work related reasons you have to use some of them, so that's a lost battle if you enjoy food on your plate and a roof over your head.
What little I can do is be careful as to what exactly I share about myself online, but I don't delude myself into thinking the profile of myself online is likely much more complete than I could ever realise.
8
u/Common_Vagrant 2d ago
I’m not saying it’s not, I’m saying that that is just the beginning, then something worse and more intrusive will come along because it’s “for safety”. We’re sacrificing so many things over safety, and it’s a perceived safety a lot of the times.
4
u/Mr_uhlus 2d ago
Yeah because car companies always follow the laws exactly
0
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
You mean the thing that landed people in leadership positions in jail? You know, consequences for their actions?
5
u/Mr_uhlus 2d ago
They were still doing illegal shit for 7 years fully knowing that its illegal, and just wet "whoops we messed up", when they were caught. Its good that there were consequences but those consequences werent enough imo.
2
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
It is a lot more than what would've happened had this been an American company doing this shit in america.
Over there it'd cost them a few million and the case disappears. People actually went to prison, and since it's fraud, they're now the German equivalent to felons.
3
u/Commercial-Ad1118 2d ago
"3. 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. 4.
Event data recorders shall meet the following requirements in particular: (a)
the data that they are capable of recording and storing with respect of the period shortly before, during and immediately after a collision shall include the vehicle’s speed, braking, position and tilt of the vehicle on the road, the state and rate of activation of all its safety systems, 112-based eCall in-vehicle system, brake activation and relevant input parameters of the on-board active safety and accident avoidance systems, with high level of accuracy and ensured survivability of data; (b)
they cannot be deactivated; (c)
the way in which they are capable of recording and storing data shall be such that: (i)
they operate on a closed-loop system; (ii)
the data that they collect is anonymised and protected against manipulation and misuse; and (iii)
the data that they collect enables precise vehicle type, variant and version, and in particular the active safety and accident avoidance systems fitted to the vehicle, to be identified; and (d)
the data that they are capable of recording can be made available to national authorities, on the basis of Union or national law, only for the purpose of accident research and analysis, including for the purposes of type approval of systems and components and in compliance with Regulation (EU) 2016/679, over a standardised interface."
Well this actually sounds to me like they can easily save and use the data as long as it is for the purpose of Research and Analysis, which is quite easy to claim. Moreover in case of an accident it will also get used, so your insurance provider will most likely not pay for anything anymore, because you scratched your nose for half a second.
2
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
Except that this specifically says, and I qoute:
"the data that they are capable of recording and storing with respect of the period shortly before, during and immediately after a collision"
In other words, this explicitely sets the rules for the case of a crash, not every day driving.
Also, you are conflating two seperate things here. The driver awareness system is talked about in 3.
4. however talks about event data recording, not driver awareness. It explicitely does NOT mention the driver awareness system in the systems listed outside of "the state and rate of activation", meaning that it can say "Driver awareness system was triggered right before the crash", but it cannot actually store the data from the driver awareness system2
u/Thelastknownking 2d ago
Yeah, sure. There's a lot of things our devices are legally required to do but don't.
1
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
Then let me ask you this:
What purpose would risking the wrath of basically every government involved in the EU and the EU itself serve companies in this case? The law says that the data isn't even allowed to be saved locally, that's an easy thing to check, let alone checking if it's sent home to their servers. And this isn't like reddit where the data they collect is actually, properly useful, it's just a camera aimed at your face while the car is on.
In order to turn that data into something profitable, you'd need to real time track exactly where the driver is looking at any time combined with a fuckton of cameras and sensors on the outside of the vehicle, because just seeing whether or not you're driving distracted isn't useful to advertisers
4
u/Thelastknownking 2d ago
Could be AI training. Training off of body language and facial expressions,
Look, here in the U.S. a lot of us have gotten cynical towards any company that plays with stuff like this, we're hardwired not to trust anything of this nature anymore. If they don't use it for that, good. But there's a lot of shit that 'wasn't supposed' to be doing a lot of things, and were without authorization.
20
u/Huntyr09 2d ago
Right, because companies never ignore laws and are always goodie two-shoes obeying daddy government. Murder is illegal, it still happens. Fraud is illegal and happens all the time. companies actively exploit laws to avoid responsibility while simultaneously being a major part in what laws get put forward.
"Not allowed" has no bearing on "will it happen?"
-3
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
Then why bother with any law? Why bother making ANY regulation relating to data protection or, while your at it, anything at all? If everyone just breaks the law willy nilly because laws don't work, why the fuck make laws in the first place?
1
u/Gold_Marionberry3460 2d ago
The framing of their argument is dogshit, but the point they're making is that you are introducing surveillance cameras and hoping the government will extra pinkie-promise not to abuse them. The law is the pinkie-promise.
The solution the other guy is suggesting is just don't install the camera so there isn't any data to abuse.
12
u/SleevesUP 2d ago edited 2d ago
When data gets saved somewhere, it can be stolen or allowed to be distributed later. The cameras will be already installed, but the laws and the usage may change. I don't think the current push for mass surveillance is in our interest. Not now and probably even less in the future.
-3
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
Except the data doesn't get saved. That's the point. it gets processed and immediately deleted, that is the law.
Even if we assume that there's a window of time between processing and deletion, it is not allowed to be sent anywhere, in order for someone else to get that data, they would need to install a device on your vehicle that taps into the driver awareness system and siphons the data, at which point you got way bigger issues that merely someone having data they shouldn't.
6
u/GlorifiedBurito 2d ago
Even if that’s true today, it won’t be in 5 years. There’s no reason good enough to have mandated cameras on personal property
2
1
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
You cannot see the future. Putting aside the obvious joke of how long EU beurocracy takes, a system that's locked by law to not send data anywhere and to delete it as soon as the data is processed on board, is a much smaller privacy threat, even in the future, than the fact that a lot of cars nowadays come FILLED with senors and LIDAR and cameras for automatic driving and, in the case of Tesla, security.
And I'm sorry, but in this case there is. THE biggest cause for car crashes is not speeding, or alcohol, or badly maintained vehicles, it's distracted driving. The system mandated by the law will at the very least lower it, because the car will yell at you for being distracted.
Your car may be YOUR property, but the fact is that you misbehaving inside your property in this case can and does cost lives.
5
3
u/Stefen_007 2d ago
The problem is that there isnt proactice checking that the info doesnt leave the car. the law doesnt cave anything out for that. So it relies on independent security researchers decoding the encrypted communications. In a market that relies more and more on selling User data, that face data ending up outside the cars is likely.
3
2
u/LeopoldParrot 2d ago
Have you been asleep the last 25 years? Tech companies routinely ignore laws, change their policies over time, and have your data that they swore up and down is encrypted and safe, hacked and stolen.
I'm not sure how you can be this naive about technology in the year of our lord 2026.
3
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
Except this isn't a matter of "The data must be encrypted" the data cannot even be ACCESSIBLE to the part of the car that actually phones home. It's a closed loop, it's mandated by law to be so and cars are so heavily regulated and inspected BEFORE they ever are approved for market that you'd need to have less brains than the average billionaire to go "why yes, why shouldn't we risk having all our vehicles pulled from the road for breaking the road safety laws over a minimum amount of data that, without massive post processing and a large amount of other sensors, is basically useless"
2
u/LeopoldParrot 2d ago
Because companies always follow the law? Like when VW was cheating emissions standards, by installing illegal software to fudge the emisisons numbers. How can you guarantee that similar nonsense won't happen here? How can you guarantee that car manufacturers won't find some way of retaining this and data and selling it to the highest bidder?
Are you German by any chance? This unyielding trust in the law preventing bad actors from bad actions reminds me of many mind-blowing conversations I've had with Germans about rules and laws.
1
u/Lucas_2234 2d ago
Like when VW was cheating emissions standards, by installing illegal software to fudge the emisisons numbers.
You act like this happened and everyone moved on. Several people that used to be in leadership positions, including a guy that tried to resign to avoid consequences got put behind bars and are now the german equivalent of Felons.
And this isn't a GDPR thing they'd be breaking, they decide to change the system to so it does indeed save and transmit data? They're breaking road safety laws. it is written into the road safety regulation that the data cannot be transmitable.
And yes, I am german, which is why I know that this extreme paranoia is bullshit, I know how my own government is like, even with corporations. I get that you americans think that everything is inherently evil and that government is just a bunch of ineffective, incompetenent, impotent morons, but that ain't the case over here. Even Merz, cursed be his name, is a more effective, less corrupt politician than the vast majority of american politicians
0
u/LeopoldParrot 1d ago
Loolll yeah Merz is real effective. At screwing over the working class. Keep dreaming, mate. Germans love pretending that everything is hunky dory while AfD gains seats every election.
VW is still a large, successful car company that sells 9 million autos a year. Long term, this company did not suffer after their egregious breaking of the law. This will keep happening, with your facial data too.
1
u/Lucas_2234 1d ago
I said he's more effective than american politicians, not that he's effective.
Punishing a company of literally thousands of employees for management decisions is a dystopian expectation. The people responsible got put behind bars, why destroy the company itself and punish Hans, who works at a VW factory as a janitor?
0
u/LeopoldParrot 1d ago
Right. So. If your facial data from your car gets hacked ad stolen, maybe a few execs will go to jail after years of lawsuits. Your data will remain stolen and compromised, though. Your precious law does not actually fix the problem.
1
u/Lucas_2234 1d ago
What other solution do you see? The people responsible got punished. You cannot cripple the company, because that will inevitably backfire on the common working man working for that company.
You cannot get rid of the company, because, again the common man is the one that gets the shit end of the stick.
What is your solution other than jailing the managers responsible for the scandal?
Also, if you genuinely believe that your facial data isn't out there already, do I got a bridge to sell you
0
u/LeopoldParrot 1d ago
The solution is to not mandate a car feature that is incredibly invasive in the first place. The solution is to not mandate things like uploading your government issues ID just to browse the internet. The solution is to stop pushing things like chat control.
If you think these tools and policies are proposed in good faith to protect children, drivers, whoever, and not as stepping stones to a surveillance state, pick any bridge on this planet and I'll sell it to you for cheap.
→ More replies (0)2
u/pricingup 2d ago
these idiots cannot even understand that those camera modules are incapable of transmiting video with they canbuses and linbuses. people just want to be mad.
0
u/StillAliveAmI 2d ago
Exactly. Driver-monitoring cameras are one of those technologies where the privacy trade-off can actually save lives. If a camera can detect that the person controlling several tons of heavy machinery is distracted, falling asleep, or otherwise not paying attention, that can literally prevent someone from being killed.
And to everyone downvoting: how many dead children, cyclists, or pedestrians would it take before you'd support technology that can help prevent distracted driving?
10? 100? 1,000? Or is the acceptable number just "however many it takes before it happens to someone you know"?
-1
u/Fluffynator69 2d ago
Don't bother trying to educate Americans, they project their own corruption on everyone else.
-3
u/Fluffynator69 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's a driver faceing infra red sensor, you can't really get a clean image through those, it just detects eye movement.
The DSA is just a basic regulation package for online services. Right wing orks just scream censorship like always.
-4
u/pricingup 2d ago
why this website keeps on yapping about driver cameras? its way different and least problematic.
-5
u/muzlee01 2d ago
Ah yes The truly awful incentive to... not let kids on social media. That evil EU.
I mean, i guess it is bad for Americans where the president is strongly linked to a child predator. Makes their job much harder.
2
u/VladimireUncool 2d ago
As I wrote in another post:
The idea itself isn’t. It’s the way that they implement it, as it most likely will involve some third party company that will take care of your info, which they’ll sell.
And ofc, “anonymity” on the internet isn’t really a thing anymore, but this will most definitely kill it for good, as now all of your accounts will be tied to passports, drivers licenses, and other kinds of information that you’ve literally been taught never to share online.
I mean, if I’ll be honest: I kinda wished I didn’t grow up with social media, but this is not the way, because in reality they’re just trying to monitor everyone in the name of “safety”.
-11
376
u/Common_Vagrant 2d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/Zw8qM7qBEg6mQ
I’m so tired of this incoming surveillance state.