The headline is wrong. The article and the headline seems to be written in a way to cause outrage by giving the impression that the EU requires cameras which should be recording your face all the time and storing/sending it to authorities or something but what the EU actually requires is "Advanced Driver Distraction Warning System" which may be implemented using cameras and no recording or transmitting is required, in fact actually recording and transmitting would be a problem with GDPR.

▲

tjwebbnorfolk 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is what we call a slippery slope

▲

mrtksn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Nope, that's not what we call slippery slope. This system does not require data recording or sharing, does not require cameras.

▲

ang_cire 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It absolutely is a slippery slope argument.

"New government mandate paves way for additional government mandate" is about as straightforward a slippery slope argument as you can get.

Slippery slope arguments don't require the eventual fear (e.g. cameras recording you) to be present in the current form, otherwise it wouldn't be a slope.

▲

mrtksn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

There are no camera requirements and if cameras are used they are prohibited from using them for the stuff the article implies because the privacy is protected by GDPR. Remember how US corporations really hate EU regulations? Yes that's the regulation preventing them from processing your face even if the system is implemented with a camera.

▲

tjwebbnorfolk 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

GDPR doesn't protect privacy of data, it regulates how any collected data is stored and used and requires consent of the person.

As a US-based developer, all it does is make it more irritating to build anything that europeans might use because I have to gather consent 100 times. Nothing else changes about the system, you just decide whether to use it or not -- which, by the way, is already a feature of all software right out of the box. So GDPR achieves nothing except annoying all developers and users everywhere.

Now they can simply write consent into the purchase agreement for a new vehicle. No consent = no purchase. It's really simple.

	▲	mrtksn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If you really want to believe that if a light shines on a CCD chip the only way forward is to record that and send that to corporations and the governments that keep believing it. We are in an age of extremism, everything must be extreme and detached from reality.

▲

ang_cire 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You either didn't read my comment, or aren't groking it.

Whether there are cameras mandated now is irrelevant. The framework that accepts government-mandated ADDW is now in place. Most makers are fulfilling it by using cameras, whether required to or not.

Future enhancements to how ADDW is enforced (such as mandatory cameras), is now a much smaller hurdle for them to overcome.

Also, as the other commenter pointed out, you don't understand GDPR (or at least, how it affects US companies).

▲

tjwebbnorfolk 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Once the camera is there, the temptation for future governments to use this power for more things than originally required will become irresistible.

also: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+slippery+slope+mea...

▲

mrtksn 3 hours ago | parent [-]

That's not slippery slope, no cameras are required. The whole outrage is based on bullshit ragebait.

▲

tjwebbnorfolk 3 hours ago | parent [-]

and what sensor do you propose using to make sure people appear awake and alert? a magic device that can evaluate posture, demeanor, facial expression, wakefulness, etc but somehow definitely is not a camera?

yes you've read the text accurately, now it's time to use your brain and consider what it means.

▲

mrtksn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you want to be pedantic you can choose to be pedantic about the fact that the text literally does not require a camera. If we can pass that, then let's stick with the reality and understand that processing the light that shines on CCD sensor doesn't automatically mean that it is being recorded and handed over to the police. Since we are allowed to use our brains, we can understand that recording and transmitting would require extra hardware over what's required to process the data from CCD sensor and discard it right away.

▲

tjwebbnorfolk 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the fact that the text literally

> processing the light that shines on CCD sensor doesn't automatically mean

and I'm the one being pedantic. ok bro. There's a thing called common sense, thinking for yourself, using your own brain to perform inference. Try it some time.

	▲	mrtksn 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Try reducing hallucinations with your inference

▲

DoesntMatter22 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think it's misleading at all. Is it a camera that's aimed at your face? It seems like it.

	▲	mrtksn 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nope, the laws require Advanced Driver Distraction Warning System and does not require cameras aimed at your face. Also, cameras are receivers. Nothing happens when cameras are aimed at your face, it is only significant when you are interested with the received image and it actually nothing happens, it is processed on device to see if you are tired/distracted/asleep. Here is the actual text: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2023/2590/oj/eng They mention that cameras are required when testing the systems compliance but does not specify how these systems should work.

▲

gib444 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I remember the brief period when they told us that the self service checkout weren't recording video. Then they just said oh actually they do now and nobody battered an eye lid

If the tech is put there it's just a matter of time. They can't resist

	▲	mrtksn 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't know who told you that but maybe it wasn't the EU?