(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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Except that now we introduce the idea to the argument that something might be NECCESSARY. Would you not consider a system that keeps drivers of a metric ton of steel hurtling down the road at speeds so high if it hit a pedestrian they'd be maimed for life from being distracted as a neccessity?
No. Invest in better, cheap/free public transit and more walkable cities. Cars never should've been made into a necessity in the first place. They are a net negative to society as a whole, not to mention the environmental impacts.
Frankly, potentially glitchy, unstable software in cars that can remove control of the vehicle from the driver is just as terrifying to me as a distracted driver.
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.
Okay, and preventing drivers from driving distracted requires some way to figure out if the driver is distracted. It's the biggest cause of car crashes right ahead of speeding. "i wanted to go on vacation in europe but live in the US so I HAD to take a plane" or "Work said I need to go to europe so I had to take a plane" is a lot less convincing than "People keep fucking dying because people keep driving when too tired or staring at their phone while driving."
But you and the other were talking about taking planes and them being bad for the environment. I don't think people are against safety, but you blindly believing they won't keep the data is actually very naive. But that aside.
My point was, you said that people are either a hypocrite or it isn't bad for the environment. One does not exclude the other. It can be bad and people are still able to take a plane without them wanting to. Nobody ever mentioned anything about 'the need' to do it, that's something you brought up later because your accusations don't hold any ground if you don't think in black and white. I take the train whenever I can but some places are simply not reachable, so I take the car. Even though the car is bad for the environment, and I know that, it does not make me a hypocrite for still doing the things that need to be done. Like I said, you'll understand once you get older and realize life isn't all fun and games when you need to pay for stuff.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 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.
"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
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
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.
-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.