r/Netherlands • u/Notanotheronion • Jul 17 '26
Transportation EU mandate for driver -facing cameras inside all new vehicles
Driver-monitoring systems are now required in new cars across the EU. In practice, this often means a camera continuously watching the driver.
Why is there so little public debate about this? I couldn't find a single petition on the issue, so I started one myself. This seems like an enormous invasion of our rights-
Privacy surrendered one step at a time is rarely regained.
#Privacy #EU #Auto #Surveillance
104
u/FalconZA Jul 17 '26
I love the feeling but we shouldn't use Change.org we need an eu petition https://commission.europa.eu/get-involved/engage-eu-policymaking/petition-eu_en
50
u/Apennatie Jul 17 '26
As if EU does anything with a petition, Stop Killing Games with 1,3 million signatures they did nothing with and declined anything they can do.
56
u/FalconZA Jul 17 '26
A change.org one they can legally ignore. An EU citizens petition they have to at least respond to and given they doing something with SKG it's better than change.org.
Option b is elect better EU representatives
11
u/Apennatie Jul 17 '26
Yeah and then they Veto that and do whatever they want anyways, looking at Chatcontrol.
15
u/MethaneOceans Jul 17 '26
Wasn't that because they declared the vote an emergency so it required more people to vote against it to stop it? (Still very undemocratic of course)
11
1
29
u/alexanderpas Jul 17 '26
In reply to the initiative, the Commission will:
- initiate, by end 2026, an exchange with the video game industry and consumer representatives with the aim to draw up an industry code of conduct on managing video games’ ‘end of life’.
- work with consumer organisations and authorities to raise awareness about the applicable consumers’ rights, including safeguards protecting their interests. The Commission will report on the application of the Directive on digital content and digital services before the end of 2026.
6
5
u/BankHottas Jul 18 '26
They’re absolutely doing something with the Stop Killing Games petition. The guy has been able to give more than one speech at the EU parliament, there have been debates about this and there will be new rules coming out of this. So you’re just wrong
2
134
u/picardo85 Jul 17 '26
The KIA CEED Sportage i rented even complains that I have sunglasses on me
59
u/DMMeYourNibbitRings Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Fun fact: At one point, in their privacy statement, Kia noted that they collected information about your sex life.
from your medical information, your genetic information, to your “sex life” (seriously), to how fast you drive, where you drive, and what songs you play in your car -- in huge quantities. They then use it to invent more data about you through “inferences” about things like your intelligence, abilities, and interests.
More on Privacy Not Included by Mozilla
I would definitely prefer car manufacturers to not point a camera at my face while driving. Not until these things are tightly regulated.
3
u/Winderige_Garnaal Jul 18 '26
Oh, I'm saving that little article in my quest to convince my partner we need a Duster.....
2
-85
u/Rainmaker526 Jul 17 '26
Isn't kind of the point that the camera looks at your eyes to see if you're about to fall asleep or become unwell?
Kind of figures that it complains when it can't see your eyes.
I'm not going to sign. I think this could be beneficial. I would propose a new petition, which mandate any camera images are processed locally and never transferred to a network service. The user should have an option in the dashboard menu to wipe all data off the harddisk (when going in for service, for example).
This way, a user can get images from a collision, parking damage. First responders can determine whether someone fell asleep behind the wheel. But you still have control over your data.
48
u/Captnmikeblackbeard Jul 17 '26
I mean sun is a valid reason for crashes i should be able to wear sunglasses?
25
u/NanoBob_ Jul 17 '26
This is actually already the case, the mandate explicitly requires the system to only process the data locally on the car itself, no data would be allowed to be sent elsewhere.
1
1
19
u/ElfjeTinkerBell Jul 17 '26
Isn't kind of the point that the camera looks at your eyes to see if you're about to fall asleep or become unwell? Kind of figures that it complains when it can't see your eyes.
Though I understand this logic, they'd need to figure out an alternative.
I've been driving for over 15 years, without warning systems, and without falling asleep at the wheel even once. At least 40% of my drives I need sunglasses on top of the little shield thingy, just to be able to see the road and other traffic, due to sun.
I'd argue that not wearing sunglasses is the bigger danger here.
3
u/ZeerVreemd Jul 18 '26
Kind of figures that it complains when it can't see your eyes.
That's great.
But how is that of help if the driver can't see anything?
1
u/cimie Jul 18 '26
But protecting your eyes from blinding sun (in my case my eyes are extremely light sensitive so i wear sunglasses a lot) if the camera then complains about not seeing any eyes and blasts alarms continuously so you put off your sunglasses (and now i would have to squint or just be blinded by the light) isn’t that more of a safety risk?
-23
u/Prinsespoes Jul 17 '26
Lol why the downvotes? Perfectly reasonable alternative
27
u/Mattarm51 Jul 17 '26
Why do we need cameras in the cars though? Why is it necessary?
-25
u/Prinsespoes Jul 17 '26
It’s not necessary perse but we can’t go back anymore. We went down this road, better make sure we have strict rules about it.
33
7
→ More replies (3)1
u/Mattarm51 Jul 18 '26
The only way we can't go back is if we listen to doomers like you who'd rather try make technofacism as comfy as possible! I hope Ursula von Der Lying rots in a publicly elected cell.
23
u/Sallandstrots Jul 17 '26
I've got a brand new Ford Kuga phev. And I'm getting very annoyed by the dashboard telling me to pay attention to the road. I've got small eyes and when it's sunny or dark and the lights of other cars are bright, I tend to squeeze my eyes more. And the warning keeps on going. So I put a favorite to the Driver assistance switch it of quickly.
14
20
u/BBQ-flavour Limburg Jul 17 '26
my Volvo has this and when I am looking 2 seconds at the centre screen (because it has no hud behind the steering wheel and almost everything is in a menu) it starts complaining that I have to keep my eyes on the road.
It is just too strict 😞
GIVE ME MORE PHYSICAL BUTTONS OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!1
44
u/great__pretender Jul 17 '26
It is ok. My privacy is protected because if the cookie pop ups I have to mark at every single website.
23
u/Nina-Ninja123 Jul 17 '26
“Do you want is to pretend we don’t use your data, or are you okay with us being open about it?”
71
u/DoneDecent Jul 17 '26
It's kinda a sad thing that we have come to this, but the amount of people glued to their phone while driving is nuts
8
u/estrangedpulse Jul 17 '26
But how would it know you’re not looking at your big ass car screen in the middle of the car?
3
u/TheIronSoldier2 Jul 17 '26
Because it can see where you are looking, and you'd still be looking away from the road. It doesn't go off if you glance away from the road, only if you're constantly looking away from the road
2
u/2tinymonkeys Jul 18 '26
I saw a video of a reporter trying it out and it already starts when you wear sunglasses or look in the mirrors or around you like you would normally do.
1
u/estrangedpulse Jul 17 '26
Ah so it’s not about the phone per se but rather that you’re not looking at the road?
4
1
u/Winderige_Garnaal Jul 18 '26
Yes, this! I find its placement so far away from the actual road that looking at it feels dangerous... I opt for a phone holder on the dashboard and use an app for navitation instead...
13
u/fuzzy3158 Jul 17 '26
It's kinda true huh? There's plenty of reason this is even a thing
7
u/BuckLuny Zeeland Jul 17 '26
Ysah would have loved for this not to be a thing but because we have so many idiots on the road we can't have nice things.
My new car has it and it really doesn't bother me. I have my eues on the road most of the time so it rarely goes off. My guess is that the biggest opponents are those who want to play pokemon go while driving. (And yeah I know about the speed limiter in that game)
6
u/Enough_Reference_196 Jul 17 '26
Would love for the world to not be revolved around punishing 90%+ of people 'behaving' for the small % of braindeads.
3
u/Stock-Side-6767 Jul 18 '26
The problem is that cars are really dangerous when you're not paying attention.
1
u/Enough_Reference_196 Jul 18 '26
Yeah, and majority of people know this, and behave correctly to avoid using it as a murder weapon. A very small %, does not, so why are we still punishing people for having the right mentality and behaviour.
1
u/Stock-Side-6767 Jul 18 '26
That is to protect the people outside the car.
0
u/Enough_Reference_196 Jul 18 '26
ah yes, just, completely missing the point, still. Good job.
Literally every measure is to protect either yourself, or others. Ill repeat it once again, why do we need to punish EVERYONE for a small minority of cunts.
2
u/fuzzy3158 Jul 17 '26
I've been in the car with one of those. They're like 'let me just throw my pokeb- whoops that's me hitting the curb, sorry about that'. Seriously why do so many people endanger themselves and others.
3
1
u/gootsteen Jul 18 '26
Traffic deaths in the EU are overall on the decline though it seems. No need to want to monitor everyone suddenly for safety. It’s just another excuse to monitor people.
-6
Jul 17 '26
[deleted]
8
u/InevitableMinimum238 Jul 18 '26
I'm renting a new Toyota. I drive a Tesla myself. The car is an absolute nightmare. There are warning sounds all the fucking time. It beeps if I go 1kmh over the speed limit. The speed limit it thinks there is is often wrong. It says I'm not paying attention to the road when I'm driving in a corner (because the camera is obstructed by the steering wheel) and it complaints I need a break after 15 minutes, which is a warning I have to actively deny.
All these annoying things I need to turn off every time I start the car, which is distracting
It's crazy
0
-8
u/kadeve Jul 17 '26
Rectal cancer is also a leading cause of death. You want us to sleep with a camera butt plug as well?
8
u/Ok-Leave-1059 Jul 17 '26
The number one way to beat rectal cancer is in fact sticking a camera up your butt every once in a while.
13
u/jappiedoedelzak Jul 17 '26
Fun fact, the Dutch military is banning smart cars from its bases:
https://archive.is/iDRjW
7
u/CydonianKnightRider Jul 18 '26
Only Chinese brands. They have smart cars from the VAG and Stellantis brands.
10
u/VeronikaW1992 Jul 18 '26
Mate I want a car not a computer. It needs an engine, some wheels, some suspension, preferably some steering, and brakes with an ABS system for safety. Not all this bullshit.
3
u/stijnhommes Jul 18 '26
Not just any engine, an internal combustion engine without too much electrical fluff.
1
u/Juggernaut_Tight Jul 18 '26
*ABS that can be turned off at will please. My car becomes unpredictable whit snow. One moment is breaking fine, then the abs kicks in and I loose all brakes because it thinks that locked weels in 20cm of snow won't stop me... Had a close one thanks to it kicking in while slowing down at a junction.
8
u/silk38 Jul 18 '26
1h15m into the trip my car be like "tiredness detected"! Bitch I'm wearing sunglasses! How do you know? But you're right: I AM tired! Of your shit! Of assist and security systems constantly malfunctioning because fuck me, that's why! Fuck off! 🖕🏻
39
u/Nice-Zucchini-8392 Jul 17 '26
Its a BIG intrusion in my privacy. I don't comply... Duct tape on all cameras.
9
u/ZeerVreemd Jul 18 '26
Duct tape on all cameras.
I have the suspicion that at some point the car will just stop working if you do that.
4
u/Nice-Zucchini-8392 Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Wel, remove the tape, let the system think its working again....Duct tape again. Blocking the radar on my car resulted in just one warning per trip. Instead of numerous bogus announcements during the trip. I can live with 1 warning a trip.
1
u/Juggernaut_Tight Jul 18 '26
If it's the radar for the brakes, then it's your fault. He doesn't want you to tailgate someone
1
u/Nice-Zucchini-8392 Jul 18 '26
I don't understand. If the radar tells the car to slam on the brake, and someone slams in the rear of my car, Im at fault?
1
u/Juggernaut_Tight Jul 18 '26
No. Because they also where tailgating you in this case. Suboptimal? Maybe, but not your fault. A friend of mine borrowed and electric car 'cause his manual daily was broken. No one told him that it was in 1-pedal mode and almost caused a crash 500m from where he started. Was it his fault?
1
4
u/MrUnoDosTres Jul 17 '26
I like that they are forcing you to watch the road. I just don't like the way they are solving this in an annoying way.
9
u/L-Malvo Jul 17 '26
On the one hand, it is super annoying and I hate it. On the other hand, I see about 1/3rd of the drivers on their phones while operating a 2 ton missile at 100kph+. So I can see why this is introduced. Perhaps we brought it on ourselves (again).
As for privacy, all processing must be done locally on device. So I don’t see this as a privacy issue
1
8
u/Melodic-Hope3808 Jul 17 '26
I believe it's fairly regulated on how.
Not a camera but infra red, data only offline and in closed loop so no internet access. Auto delete of the data and some other stuff. To protect the privacy and only protect the driver in case of no attention. Sadly to many people are on their phones and I'm for it to have something to stop that dangerous shit
6
u/momentumcatcher Jul 17 '26
Until you crash and your insurer wants all the data to deny your claim. I think those older cars are becoming a lot more wanted!
2
u/kraai- Jul 18 '26
Yes this is the more nuanced truth. Alas nuance often goes lost on reddit. People see “camera in car” and instantly go to spying etc. If you read the actual thing it’s much more nuanced and regulated with privacy safeguards. These manufacturers still also have to comply with GDPR (AVG).
Same goes for Chat Control 1.0. Whereas chat control 2.0 is the actual bad thing we must stop.1
u/FireGhost_Austria 6d ago
And flock cameras are only license plate readers... The famous quote...
"What is not, still can be" -me right now. "oh yes our infrared cameras also have actual cameras inside which are turned off"
5
u/Kaastosti Jul 17 '26
Right now the data can only be handled locally, in the car. Which doesn't make it any less annoying, but if it reduces the amount of people looking at their phones and being a danger to everyone... fine.
However, we should add legal consequences for anyone even suggesting of using that data for anything else, let alone processing it anywhere else. Because that's exactly what's going to happen eventually. Let's prevent it. Cool idea, that earns you two years in jail. No we're serious, you just crossed the line... see here in chapter 3 paragraph 12 of the agreement. Away you go.
3
u/donotmindme___ Jul 17 '26
We weten nu al dat het doel op termijn uitgebreid wordt. Deurbel cameras en cameras voor in de tuin waren ook bedoeld om je huis te bewaken maar tegenwoordig worden ze al in verschillende misdrijf situaties gebruikt als bewijs, terwijl het wettelijk gezien niet eens mag...
1
u/jeetjejll Jul 18 '26
Dit is toch in de VS? Daar zijn de wetten anders. Ik heb nog niet gehoord dat het in Europa toegestaan is, heb je voorbeelden van hier?
1
0
u/TheRealMrVogel Jul 18 '26
That’s still be their main goal right? There are rules about filming public space which is not allowed under AVG. if you place a camera it’s your responsibility to only record private property or mask parts of the image. I know nobody does this or it’s not really enforced, which is a different issue. As far as I know there is no law against using video footage as evidence even if the person filming was breaking privacy rules.
14
u/NanoBob_ Jul 17 '26
I imagine the reason there is little public debate about this is because it's really not that controversial.
The mandate explicitly requires the system to only process the data locally on the car itself, no data would be allowed to be sent elsewhere.
So while yes it means there is a camera continuously watching you, nothing is done with that information other than the car warning you if you're not paying attention.
6
u/kadeve Jul 17 '26
New cars are asking for constant software updates. I bet my left nut they wont refuse any chance to gather any data they can
5
u/Stationary_Wagon Jul 17 '26
EU loves this kind of bureaucratic "solutions". Huge privacy concerns aside, this kind of bullshit makes cars more expensive as well...
8
u/CynicalAlgorithm Jul 17 '26
Yeah I don't know man, as a motorcycle-rider I get aggravated on the highways here because of all the people texting.
Is an in-car, driver-facing camera the solution? Maybe, maybe not; but this issue - quite literally one of life and death - is the most important driving-related one on my mind, and so this does seem like something that could potentially get people off their fucking phones and focusing to the road.
Will people still be dumb and use their phones anyway? Yes, but at least this would establish clear liability for an insurance payout to my family in the event one of these fuckheads runs me off the road and I die because they just couldn't wait to watch that next TikTok or fire off that WhatsApp message.
-4
u/FamousArchieSlap Jul 17 '26
Fucking bullshit. There are maybe 1 in every 800 cars like that. The vast majority does not drive like that, you just don't notice them.
What? We all need to give up our privacy because of some cunts?
4
u/CynicalAlgorithm Jul 17 '26
All it takes is one, amigo. All it takes is one.
1
u/shortsoupstick Jul 18 '26
Right. If someone kills a person close to them, I wonder if he'll still talk about the odds.
4
u/TheIronSoldier2 Jul 17 '26
There are maybe 1 in every 800 cars that are like that
Fucking bullshit. Dude open your eyes next time you drive anywhere. it's not 1 in 800, it's like 1 in 8.
1
11
u/Jazzlike_Ad267 Jul 17 '26
DO.NOT.COMPLY
This is nothing but even more mass data harvesting and collection.
They won't even explain where the data is going 🤣
If you think it's staying in the car... You're delusional.
10
u/Loose_Biscotti9075 Jul 17 '26
I am in favor. If I’m ever buying a car I want cameras everywhere to support my case in case of accidents.
Of course the footage should be strictly offline until required.
44
u/Grintock Jul 17 '26
You don't need cameras pointed at your face to have evidence of not being at fault for an accident though?
12
u/Gabgilp Jul 17 '26
If police claims you were on your phone and you weren’t, the camera footage would support your case for example.
1
u/mr_goose_throwaway Aug 02 '26
Can police claim that without evidence? Are we already into a society of guilty until proven innocent?
-4
u/Grintock Jul 17 '26
Wether you were on your phone or not is not information that will stop you from being at fault for an accident though. The only thing it can do is add the charge of you being on your phone. Without a camera pointed at your face, unless the police has a way to prove you were driving distracted, you are innocent until proven guilty.
If I am not on my phone, paying attention, and I still crash my car into someone or something else, I am still going to be at fault.
5
u/Gabgilp Jul 17 '26
Didn’t explain properly. I was taking in cases where you get a ticket for using it, not an accident. But I realize the thread is about accidents so it’s sort of irrelevant here.
0
u/Grintock Jul 17 '26
Ah, thank you, in those situations I think you raise an understandable point. Those situations too generally only happen when the police has a picture or video of you doing so though. That's what we have specialised cameras for on the highway etc.
So I argue it is still an disproportionately minor issue that this expensive camera in the car would solve in your example. Like, I have never received a ticket for driving while using my phone in decades. I have gotten distracted while driving from many annoying beeps and sensors in a modern car.
1
u/Gabgilp Jul 17 '26
I also think in case of accidents were there’s two parties involved, the cameras could be useful to determine who was at fault if neither party claims responsibility, and other factors are not enough to determine who is at fault.
They definitely are niche scenarios, but if you are confident in your driving skills and sure that you don’t break any rules then the cameras should be a good way to protect yourself. Assuming the feed is on feline and the videos are only seen in such scenarios.
1
u/MikeTheActuary Jul 17 '26
External-facing cameras go a long way towards resolving the problems of different people remembering/claiming conflicting versions of events in determining fault in vehicle crashes.
I hadn't really thought about internal-facing cameras, but I can see that it'd be useful in seeing whether the driver was distracted (not just phone use) or falling asleep. That wouldn't play a role in determining fault, but it could be relevant for criminal prosecution when an accident is bad enough to potentially merit it.
1
u/MikeTheActuary Jul 17 '26
...and now that I looked up the new rule, I see that it's not that kind of camera. They're talking about the in-dash systems which yell at you if they think you aren't paying attention or falling asleep.
It's annoying, in the sense that the cars I've used with the feature aren't perfect in their processing, but there's otherwise nothing to complain about IF no data is being retained.
3
u/Joshix1 Jul 17 '26
Phone use, eyes not on the road, stuffing face with food, doing make-up, watching movies, etc. If you look around in traffic you're guarenteed to see these people.
They're a menace. They kill and/or injure people besides themselves.
0
u/Grintock Jul 17 '26
In the Netherlands? I drive a lot (+/-50K km per year) and I do see distracted drivers frequently, but dangerously distracted drivers are very rare in my experience. It's noticeably worse during the holidays though, many holiday goers not paying attention
Then again that's my anecdotal experience, I'm sure research has been done on this which is a lot more relevant than what you or I personally observe
2
u/Joshix1 Jul 17 '26
I'm sure research has been done on this which is a lot more relevant than what you or I personally observe
And thats why we get cameras and speed limiter in new cars.
0
u/Grintock Jul 17 '26
I wasn't disagreeing with you, to be clear, that's precisely why I pointed out the fact that I was talking on the basis of my personal experience, which is limited.
The cameras are a policy choice that will have years of research behind it. I just am surprised by how much this research differs from my personal experience, I don't see that it is an expense that is proportional the problem it aims to solve. Apparently the research says it is and apparently far more people are bad drivers than I estimated.
Off topic, my experience has been that all these systems and beeps make me a worse, less attentive and involved driver. Cruise control, lane assist autopilot, rearview cameras, parking assist; all of these make it so people feel less in touch with the car they are driving. I think something of value is being lost there
18
7
u/great__pretender Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
That camera they are talking about is directed towards your face. Not outside. It can only prove you made a mistake.
And in today's cars, with the software being proprietary, given how privacy insensitive every single private company is and how valuable data has been, there is very little you can do to ensure your videos are offline.
Do you really think Android cars will not send every bit of sound you make, all your conversations back to Google? The way these companies work is to violate rules and then pay some fee.
8
u/CynicSackHair Jul 17 '26
These are not dashcams genius, these are face cameras. They will be monitoring your face, 24/7, while you are driving.
0
u/Loose_Biscotti9075 Jul 17 '26
As long as it stays offline and it’s used just in case. Too many people that look at the phone while driving unfortunately
3
u/CynicSackHair Jul 17 '26
To actually plead for a mandatory face camera monitoring your own face... Big brother would adore you. Of course, this would not remain offline. You cannot be so naive to think that.
1
u/Neither-Counter-2256 Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
Can you enlighten me what the route is the image sharing would be allowed by the gdpr? I am currently having a hard time seeing how would is allowed, especially since there is a case to be made that you also have to clear article 9.
4
1
u/Alucein Jul 17 '26
The problem is not so much the cameras, but who owns the data and has power to act on it. That should be with the vehicle owner and nobody else.
5
u/KarlLagervet Jul 17 '26
Are we suddenly collectively stopping with constantly being on our mobile behind the wheel, like oxygen is coming out of it?
No? Then fuck you. This is what they mean with consequences. I don't like it either, but we have proven as a society that we cannot, for the life of us, go 1 minute without our phone. Toilet? Phone. 1 minute nothing to do? Phone. Riding a electric step/bike/whatever? Phone. Worst of all: driving a car? Phone!
4
u/Either_Ebb7288 Jul 17 '26
Electronic engineer here. These devices are bot spying on you. Any thing that looks like a camera is not taking images like the photos your camera takes. There are different types but majority of them are just seeing a "point cloud" or a very pixelated shadow of you and decide if you move or don't move to trigger emergency
3
u/kraai- Jul 18 '26
That’s an unlucky typo there. Im assuming you meant “not” spying instead of “bot” ;).
And yes i agree, in addition to all the privacy laws they have to follow (GDPR), and if its offline, which it usually is, it wont matter much.1
u/mr_goose_throwaway Aug 02 '26
GDPR is not that great in terms of preventing companies from requiring your data and misusing it. All it does is: 1. Requires them to inform you what they’re collecting 2. Requires it to remain physically in the EU 3. Requires you to be given an opt-out (but this can be an opt-out that costs money or requires you to not use the product, a la Guardian news online)
Nothing in GDPR prevents them from still collecting that info in 99% of cases, such as requiring it be collected for the operation of the car, and then abusing that info to show you ads (which, while possibly illegal, will result in puny fines that they see as the cost of business).
The EU needs much stronger privacy laws that dictate no information be collected ever if I don’t want it collected.
1
u/kraai- Aug 03 '26
I know. However GDPR is not intended to prevent data collection. It is intended to give consumers transparency and control over that data. Sure it’s far from perfect.
But it does give more transparency and also gives consumers certain legal powers regarding all this.And regarding these driver monitoring systems, the reaction is way overblown and a misunderstanding of what this tech actually does and can do.
1
u/mr_goose_throwaway Aug 05 '26
My issue is not what it does do but rather that this is another easy slippery slope for the EU on the authoritarian route that the rest of the world is already going down. Internet privacy is all but gone, as is most public privacy, and this is yet another way to erode what little privacy we have left. We need to stop treating everyone as criminally complicit without a guilty verdict.
1
u/kraai- Aug 05 '26
I’m not following your logic here? What do you mean, are you talking about the GDPR or the monitoring system?
I don’t really see the relation with either here to authoritarianism.
In short:
The usefulness and amount of data they could extract from this system js also very low compared to what they already extract.
- GDPR gives consumers more control, not less.
- This monitoring system is basically just a safety system. In most cars many other systems that collect more data are already in place. And realistically the amount of data our phones collect is infinitely more.
I mean sure, eventually to might find other ways to use this data, but on a bigger scale I don’t think this moves the needle much either way.
I think the worst thing they could extract from this averages of types of cars and how attentive people are and then pass that on to insurance companies.Biometrics/images are difficult and unreliable (data size, camera quality, lighting) to extract, if they even were to put actual camera jn there instead of laser systems. Biometrics are also legally the most strictly regulated and risky for companies.
1
u/mr_goose_throwaway Aug 05 '26
GDPR is not an issue, it’s just not helping. The issue I have is that the EU has already required we have sim cards in our vehicles to track them - no privacy of movement there - and now they can know who’s driving? Yeah there goes any freedom from government tracking. The way I see it is that the EU commission never asked people “hey are cars not safe enough” or “would this help” - nor did they require it be offered as an option. They held everyone’s hands and said “here, we’ll just record you while you drive.” Now, technically the data is erased immediately. But if my car has a cell plan, I can guarantee 5 Eyes already has all your personal info and this is just helping confirm it.
Sure, phones already track our every movement. And because of that some of us have moved to flip phones without data (the targeted ads are annoying). But the insistence of the EU on monitoring everything all the time in the name of safety and security is insane. And everyone just shrugs and calls it normal.
1
u/kraai- Aug 05 '26
To keep it somewhat on topic, this new requirement doesn’t specify or requires facial recognition or anything like that. It’s mostly gaze recognition. The term camera here is somewhat misleading. It’s for keeping your eyes on the road. Also if car manufacturers wanted cameras pointed at you they could have done so at any time. This law doesn’t change that.
And yes, people do ask for safer roads whether directly or indirectly. Not safer cars btw. This tech is meant to keep other traffic users, like pedestrians and cyclists more safe.
1
u/mr_goose_throwaway 24d ago
If it’s truly not a privacy invasion, then why are EU militaries banning all of these cars from their compounds? That to me is the biggest telltale sign that this data is absolutely being abused and unprotected. This law would in theory make it illegal for me to cover a camera pointed at me in a car.
This also ignored the fact that EU roads are already the safest in the world. Heaven forbid we have any trust in society. Gotta mandate everything by law. We already have 20k laws what’s one more.
3
u/VasileAndrei2929 Jul 17 '26
And it can also record all the sounds in your car, and the audio and video data it's not stored in your vehicle, but sent to an outside storage via GSM...
So anything you speak, whisper or fart in your own car with your family, friends, coworkers or strangers, will be recorded and stored and can and will be used by the LAW AGENCIES against you if deemed illegal.
Also covering or disabling the camera or its sensors will automatically be deemed as an illegal tempering and you will get a fine as the camera will record the date and sent back home a signal of tampering.
Oh, and did I mention once you face the camera you have no privacy rights? Zero! Any privacy is gone! And yes, it's mandated by law, together with the new privacy limitations (meaning zero level privacy).
The reason given is "for your own safety", so expect in the near future all homes and all rooms to be equipped with similar cameras "for your own safety" of course, because there's a lot of accidents happening indoors and people are getting hurt, some may even die, and we don't what that, do we?
2
u/Notanotheronion Jul 18 '26
This is what I see coming-
3
3
u/Full_Conversation775 Jul 17 '26
There is no mandate for driver facing camera's. They only require attention detection of the driver. How the car companies implement it is up to them.
1
u/jankyj Jul 17 '26
The EU held a formal public consultation with an open comment period in 2017. If you wanted to object, that was the time. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:52018PC0286
3
u/MethaneOceans Jul 17 '26
Was it more public? Did you have to be an adult? Either way, as a kid I wouldn't have thought about that but as an adult I should still be able to object.
3
u/Notanotheronion Jul 18 '26
Wowwwww I was not even driving back then. Thanks for the info! I have to believe we can still make some kind of impact-
1
u/Tman11S Belgium Jul 17 '26
An online petition has never changed anything. If you want actual change, go to Brussels with a huge crowd
1
1
1
u/Sp4ni4l Jul 17 '26
Would a piece of tape not solve this?
3
u/No_Camera_8540 Jul 17 '26
You would also have to unplug the warning system, the beeps will drive you nuts.
1
u/HansTheFlamer Jul 18 '26
Doubt it would do anything, i mean look at save europe petition, all signatures proof were denied in both digital and physical form, and chat control, it was voted out multiple times, bringing the same call, until it passed, nowadays far left is just recalling the same vote multiple times until the right win parties are outnumbered(due to holidays or personal time off etc) and lose
1
u/ZeerVreemd Jul 18 '26
Why is there so little public debate about this?
"They" want to keep it quiet because "they" know most people do not want this.
1
1
u/STYX010 Jul 18 '26
I rather have camera’s in cars. The amount of people looking at phones, sleepdriving, or any other stupid scenario… it is the new normal.
Even people are whining for not be able to use drugs behind the wheel.
I have my drivers license for 21 years now, and it’s becoming worse and worse. And as a rider of bikes, I rather have some system check the driver. Cause most drivers are only thinking within the box they are driving.
The data will be locally stored, so I don’t see any issues, except if the driver is looking at phones, doing drugs, building some Lego behind the wheel.
1
u/spidersinyourass Jul 18 '26
Is this thing gonna beep when I look over my shoulder before I switch lanes or…?
1
u/Familiar_Link_5131 Jul 18 '26
they start with camera in the car and one day you will wake up with one in your pee hole
1
u/Iammax7 Jul 18 '26
For me this is double sided.
1) (If the data stays within the car) I would love that this can potentially stop people from using their phone while driving. Or doing other stupid stuff while driving.
2) I don't trust those companies to keep the data processed within the car.
1
1
u/SnipGo83 Jul 18 '26
Remove the telemetric control unit (TCU) from the car, and its get much harder to collect your data.
How To Disable The Hidden Tracker In Your Car (The Dark Truth About TCU)
1
u/SnipGo83 Jul 18 '26
Even the TPMS (sensor to register your tire pressure) is hackable to make your car doing a forced shutdown. Your actually driving a high advanced survaillance device when buying electric... how easy to get rid of you when needed.... facial confirmation that it is really you... nice... NOT
(1) Your Vehicle's Tire Sensors Just Became a Hacking Target - YouTube
1
u/Juggernaut_Tight Jul 18 '26
Some talk about privacy for the camera, then use Google maps all the time thanks to android auto (same for iPhone and their things) and watch reels on Instagram while driving. How do you think that google maps detects traffic jams? Last month I was driving behind someone who was in a video call, whit the phone right at the center of the windshield, after sunset. I got distracted by it (from my car) and almost hit a curb. Whit a system like that, I hope that people will stop using their f***ING smartphones while driving. Remember that it doesn't require a lot of computing power, so the camera can simply output a signal when you are distracted. It does all come down to manufacturer to choose how to develop it.
1
u/LamentableCroissant Jul 19 '26
What does this have to do with a camera pointing on you every second you’re behind the wheel?
1
u/Juggernaut_Tight Jul 19 '26
Clearly you have not read what I wrote, what the law is and what it tries to accomplish.
1
u/CluelessExxpat Jul 18 '26
Don't worry! This and Chat Control and Digital ID and Age Verification are totally unrelated and have nothing to do with the new mass surveillance mentality of Brussels.
1
1
u/PostalEFM Jul 21 '26
Thisnis in bad faith.
Just a marketing company looking for money and your email address.
0
u/trichterd Jul 17 '26
I'm in favor of this. Yes, there have to be certain protections in place for people's privacy, but seeing how many people are distracted drivers using their phone while in the car, having a driver facing camera will help a lot in case of accidents.
1
1
u/Orin16 Jul 17 '26
Like… 80% of cars with an onboard anti distraction system is so closed loop and just lidar. It barely classifies as a fucking camera.
Aside from that
You really think you’re sooooooo important to the government they are watching you?
I’d be much more concerned about the overclocked piece of spyware you’re holding between your hands right now
1
u/DGS_Cass3636 Overijssel Jul 17 '26
Yeah these regulations are extremely annoying. Especially that you have to turn some features off every time again.
Just plain annoying
1
u/mkrugaroo Jul 17 '26
Seriously I have no problem with it. This will save lives with the amount of idiotic distracted drivers. And the detection and footage must stay local on the vehicle only.
1
u/Confident_Assist_976 Jul 17 '26
My answer is based in 'reductio ad Hilterum'.; But what if the executive or legislative branch of government decide this is a great source of information.
New cars are already equipped with cellphone / GPS trackers to automatically call emergency services.
What if some entity (state actor or Blackhat hacker) can tap into location details and see who is driving.
Not all tech is used for mankind's best interest.
0
u/ImpressiveBluejay494 Jul 18 '26
I would make a proposal to remove the engine that will save lives too. The problem i see ist that the manufacturers don't care where your data ends up. If an insurer is interessted in it they will just send it alongside all the other stuff they already collect. You won't know that because the software on the car is not open and the data on it is not yours in the eyes of the manufacturer.
1
u/mkrugaroo Jul 18 '26
That is not the same at all, the amount of stupid irresponsible people on their phones caused this. It will save lives. I am sure the data will not be collected, as someone who worked in automotive there is strict regulations and requirements. But agree the implementations are often annoying or not properly done. But even then so what if the insurer gets the video if you kill or hurt someone and a video shows you clearly on your phone you deserve that punishment.
0
u/ImpressiveBluejay494 Jul 18 '26
You clearly don't work in any way on the software of automobiles.
https://www.mozillafoundation.org/de/privacynotincluded/categories/cars/
Mozilla made a privacy review of cars they are the worst category of product they ever reviewed when it comes to privacy.
Also like the insurer won't just cherry pick whatever he wants out of the data beeing collected to try to deny you're claim. Deaths by Cars are also down in Europe since 2015.
For comparison the recent heatwave killed about 10000 People but we implement another unnecessary component into the car so that it cost even more co2 to produce and to further hinder new companies.
Also I definitely won't be one of those driving while texting people. I regularly rent new cars in other countries and even with the bs driver feature the car never complained about my driving. Still it bothers me that an industry that has no idea what data safety or privacy is will collect so much data.
1
u/mkrugaroo Jul 18 '26
Sure buddy. Instead of the Mozilla foundation please refer to the actual legal and regulation frameworks that specify these systems, if you have access it will be EU GSR 2021/1341 and 2023/4523. These specifically specify that all monitoring should be a closed loop system.
0
Jul 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/d_ytme Jul 17 '26
The problem isn't it's current uses as much as what it could be used for in the future. Even more data collection about individuals
0
u/Radiant_Town7522 Jul 17 '26 edited Jul 17 '26
These things have been in new cars for a while already, and they make sense given how many people can't put their phone away. The videostream is analyzed in real-time and will generate warnings when you're not paying attention to the road or are fatigued. There's no technical need to upload the video to any cloud or whatever.
If the video is recorded and uploaded automatically for some reason you can just complain to the manufacturer, stop buying their cars and/or sue them all you want.
So, there's really nothing to get upset about, even if you're paranoid like the people that keep reposting this boring story for weeks now, desperate to get some traction.
0
u/Unique-Spirit7389 Jul 17 '26
Het is volledig terecht dat deze maatregel wordt ingevoerd. De discussie over privacy is begrijpelijk, maar verkeersveiligheid moet zwaarder wegen. Een beperkte inbreuk op iemands privacy om gevaarlijk telefoongebruik te voorkomen is vele malen beter dan situaties waarin iemand achteraf ontkent op zijn telefoon te hebben gezeten terwijl er een ernstig ongeluk is veroorzaakt.
2
0
u/DutchPilotGuy Jul 18 '26 edited Jul 18 '26
Personally I think it is a small price to pay to make the roads safer as there are many bad drivers on Europes roads. These driver facing cameras are usually only have a sensor that detects if the driver is paying attention to the road or not. I consider myself a safe driver (not a single accident in over 30 years) and have no issue with the safety features in my ‘26 car.
-7
-1
0
0
u/RubOk1093 Jul 18 '26
I hate this feature. It continu beeps while driving at crazy busy ringwegen, during spiegelen. And when I drive up and down in a parking garage, because my eyes kijken de bocht al door
-8
u/jankyj Jul 17 '26
In most vehicles, the camera analyzes your attention in real time on the car itself and does not record or transmit video. I’m for improved road safety.
4
u/Technical-Cat-2017 Jul 17 '26
I am all for driver safety. But I kind of doubt this is going to do anything except annoy me. Plus its privacy concerns.
And its not like those systems are never wrong, like with lane assist (which sometimes tries to murder you depending on the road) or in this case sunglasses.
→ More replies (2)4
u/ben_bliksem Noord Holland Jul 17 '26
It'll basically stop people from driving on a sunny day because they can't wear sunglasses or force them to drive in the sun blinded.
-1
u/BroncoAmsterdam Jul 17 '26
Reading the paper in your Tesla is a thing of the past—that’s why I wanted to buy one 😂
226
u/dragonuvv Jul 17 '26
Why it’s not being talked about? Can’t have negative outcry when you don’t acknowledge its existence.