this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
527 points (99.3% liked)

Technology

86178 readers
3747 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
527
All Cars Sold in the EU Now Require a Camera Aimed at Your Face. It’s Still Not Clear Where That Data Goes (allaboutcookies.org)
submitted 2 days ago by beep@piefed.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
265 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/c/tech/p/1247209/all-cars-sold-in-the-eu-now-require-a-camera-aimed-at-your-face-its-still-not-clear-wher

Starting July 7, 2026, every new car sold in the European Union must include a driver monitoring camera aimed at your face. Glance at your phone, your kids in the back seat, or the radio for too long, and the car will flash a warning light and sound an alert.

Automakers have known this was coming for years. What they, and EU regulators, have never spelled out is what happens to that footage after the alert goes off.

While the intention behind the new system is difficult to dispute, its implementation has raised several concerns. Early real-world testing suggests the distraction warnings can be overly sensitive and potentially distracting.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 1 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

When poor people have a car accident it's already fix it themselves, tolerate it, or replace it the vast majority of the time. When they do replace it what do you think the odds are the cheap insurance companies pay out more than they paid in? 3-4k is a lot of money when you're broke, but I think the only real change would be one less pointless bill.

Poor people are capable of saving money. Poor people are capable of driving. I'm sure the statistics are very interesting, but I don't think any of the mechanisms you propose suggest an inherent inability to drive or an inherent inability to save money. It is the burdens placed upon them that make it difficult to get ahead, not some inherent lack of ability deprives them of your privileges. I cannot support systems that increase that burden for the sake of others' luxuries.

Clearly, you've had situations where you've found value in the insurance system, and good for you I suppose, but I cannot see a justification for forcing everyone into the system.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 0 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

When poor people have a car accident it’s already fix it themselves, tolerate it, or replace it the vast majority of the time.

So your solution to exploiting poor people is to force the burden on the victim to just deal with it when someone else is at fault?

"I'm sorry the person who just totaled the most important part of your livelihood chose not to have insurance. Guess you just have to fix it yourself with all that free time and money you have, tolerate it, or buy a new one with all that money you have. Sucks you are poor!"

Great solution.

[–] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 1 points 13 hours ago

They already have to deal with it. My solution is not scamming them.

Idk, why you're so in love with a system that seems obviously oppressive to me, but whatever man I'm clearly not going to convince you.