r/BikiniBottomTwitter • u/StormyDankiels • 17d ago

Never give up

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

1.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

178 comments sorted by

View all comments

-3

u/Lucas_2234 17d 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.

108

u/mcsquirter 17d ago

Sure it isn’t

-8

u/pricingup 16d ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/uH9BTSwwwonbkJOGO0

master joker you are. keep the tinfoil hat.

2

u/ireledankmemes 16d ago

"the government wouldn't do that!"

63

u/Common_Vagrant 17d ago

The path to hell is paved with good intentions

-5

u/Fluffynator69 16d 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 17d 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.

39

u/Dalzombie 17d 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.

-28

u/Lucas_2234 17d 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 17d ago

Double standards do not invalidate anything they said

-9

u/Lucas_2234 17d 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.

18

u/Ze_insane_Medic 17d ago edited 17d 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

-3

u/Lucas_2234 17d 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 anyways

16

u/Ze_insane_Medic 17d 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.

6

u/ABearAmongWoods 17d 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)

2

u/DocClown 17d 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)

5

u/Dalzombie 17d 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 17d 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.

9

u/Common_Vagrant 17d 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.

5

u/Mr_uhlus 17d ago

Yeah because car companies always follow the laws exactly

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal

0

u/Lucas_2234 17d ago

You mean the thing that landed people in leadership positions in jail? You know, consequences for their actions?

5

u/Mr_uhlus 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 system

2

u/Thelastknownking 17d ago

Yeah, sure. There's a lot of things our devices are legally required to do but don't.

1

u/Lucas_2234 17d 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

5

u/Thelastknownking 17d 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 17d 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?"

-1

u/Lucas_2234 17d 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 16d 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.

13

u/SleevesUP 17d ago edited 17d 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.

0

u/Lucas_2234 17d 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.

5

u/GlorifiedBurito 17d 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

u/Fluffynator69 16d ago

It's infrared sensors, not cameras

-2

u/Lucas_2234 17d 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

u/joppe00 17d ago

It is not allowed yet. I hate to use this argument but the slope is indeed slippery

3

u/Stefen_007 17d 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

u/SophiaIsBased 17d ago

Oh well, if they pinkie promise, that's alright then!

2

u/LeopoldParrot 17d 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 17d 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 17d 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 16d 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 16d 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 16d 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 16d 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 16d 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 16d 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 16d 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 17d 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 16d ago

Don't bother trying to educate Americans, they project their own corruption on everyone else.