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.
Every new car. So congrats on further destroying the new car market, good job.
Time to stock up on old cars?
Sweet my problem has just become a massive opportunity!
Brexit caused many failures but if it gets me away from shit like this then it’ll have been worth it.
As if the UK isn’t implementing shit like this on its own, years before the EU does lol
Given Englands track record of spying on the public (London etc.), I would not be surprised.
now you know why Brexit passed a referendumb.
We probably started the ball rolling before fucking off
Possibly. It’s very much lose-lose for us. Both the UK government and EU seem to want to remove any shred of privacy from all areas of life.
No car maker is gonna create a separate model for the UK market
So, a couple of things…
For a real time warning system, there’s no need to actually record anything. Monitoring the video feed with no record capability should be fine.
Second, this sounds super easy to defeat with a printed photo card and a couple of Googley Eyes. 👀
At least tesls are easily fooled.
Clarkson was a step ahead of us this time.
I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some systems with stereoscopic cameras or Kinect-like laser grids
“Super Easy to Defeat” is the now. They don’t care about that.
They just need you to accept it, and move along.
In a few years time, it will not be “super easy to defeat” but will be standard practice and accepted law.
By that stage it will likely be too late to do anything. They will have tied it in with chat control and all of our data.
Can you imagine the freedom that will be discovered 50 years from now in a trend, when people decide to ditch their personal devices and live like they used to 70, 80 years ago (maybe even 60).
Until an accident occurs, and you are denied insurance coverage for breaking the TOS.
Second, this sounds super easy to defeat with a printed photo card and a couple of Googley Eyes. 👀
That’s fine, people are under the mistaken impression that there are bad drivers that would deliberately cheat this, and good drivers like them that pay 100% attention to the road, the reality is there is that 99% of drivers are good drivers ok of the time and distracted drivers some of the time, if the 1% genuinely terrible drivers actively bypass this, it’s still a major improvement for the those of us that share the road with the other 99%.
Soon enough, If you defeat or try to defeat the government surveillance system, it will probably be against the law
Can you put tape over the camera?
Or disconnect it? What happens when it no longer functions? Will I need to fix this to get my car to run again?
I bet the system would sound an alarm if you did that.
I’m willing to bet there’s an ignition interlock that would keep the car from starting if the camera is disabled.
That would be possible but unlikely. If the system fails then the driver can’t use their car. What if they’re an emergency? That wouldn’t pass.
There’s already legislation in the US to implement such a kill switch based on if the camera says the driver is drowsy or drunk. Considering the uniformity with which totalitarianism seems to be spreading, I assume something similar isn’t out of the question.
Just wait until it gets integrated into that database ICE is using that can tell them who is a citizen and who isn’t, just by looking. Then it will shut the car off if the driver looks drowsy, drunk, or the wrong shade of brown.
Alcohol detection interlocks in all cars would actually be useful. These cameras effectively do the same thing.
Have you ever had to use one? I’ve had to do it (lot attendant) and not only is it unsanitary if someone else has to drive your car, but it’s fucking hard to get the breathalyzer to actually work properly to allow you to start the car and it will go off again while you’re driving requiring you to actually breath into it again. It’s not a passive thing, you have to have the lung capacity to do it. It can be set off by false positives too. This is the dumbest take.
Have you ever had to use one?
No. I don’t drink.
This is the dumbest take.
Sure, because 32 drunk driving deaths every day is apparently not a problem for Lemmy neckbeards.
The camera would accurately detect drunk driving patterns, as well as sleepy drivers, dementia drivers, texting drivers, stoned drivers, drivers eating cereal and hot soup, applying makeup, all the stupid shit North American drivers do. If any of that affects your insurance, just don’t fucking do that.
You don’t have to drink to have used one. I don’t drink. I have had to use one. This comment reads like “fuck any service worker who might have to drive your car.” Fuck mechanics. Fuck tow truck drivers. Fuck EMS.
Fuck people who have health problems and can’t actually use their lung capacity to blow into the breathalyzer to release the interlock. They’ll never have an emergency and maybe have to drive anywhere.
That’s why it’s a dumb take. This isn’t about drunk driving deaths. Your “assume guilt” and fuck everyone else who’s not guilty but will be put in danger over it" take is exactly what I said it was.
The camera would accurately detect drunk driving patterns
The false positive rate on camera-based detection is insanely high.
Unplug the alarm speakers.
There’s probably a fuse for the system. Unless it’s integrated in the whole media system.
It’s a safety system, so it’s unlikely to handled by the media unit, which honestly just makes it harder.
This is where I’m at with shit like this. I’m just gonna keep disconnecting everything that annoys me. Including my brakes.
The logical assumption would be that such a system would need to detect a face for the car to start.
If it is enabled for theft protection. But, that would need to be disabled for fleet or rental cars.
This entire thread is assumption.
No! Sell your car! burn your house down! Drive a Model T and distill your own petroleum!
My 2021 car has this. it has no cellular data connection or significant internal storage and the camera just has what I assume is a very basic neural net that looks for signs of distraction. like the eye tracker modules some phones and laptops have. These are low-res greyscale IR cameras usually.
I’m OK with it, and it’s helped me out a few times, though I know some cars are more aggressive and beep at you just for looking at your own mirrors.
Some cars however have full time cabin recording that you dont have much control over, and some do have full time data connections that could theoretically send some kind of snapshots on events, but they arent going to do full time video streaming or uploading large video files.
What happens when you wear sunglasses?
Believe it or not, straight to jail.
I dont like being constantly monitored. I dont want to normalize the lack of privacy.
my phones is pin or pattern only
Iphone SE’s didnt have face unlock but still use the IR camera to scan your face every second.
Just because you don’t use it doesn’t mean it’s not being used on you (apologies for breaking it to you)
Apologies for not using Apple products
Oh nah no need to apologise, their products haven’t been good for decades. Merely making a point about how tech can be entirely hidden from the user
I just learned about internetless TVs that build mesh networks until one TV is found that can access the internet… that sounds like infiltrating a WiFi network and should be illegal.
Wait until you hear about the facial recognition and expression reading cameras built into the fast food ‘order here’ screens
I do a pass code, but yeah, no finger prints or shudders facial scans
Am i the only one using the simple slide up to unlock?
I would suggest to start practicing to say goodbye to privacy, bank accounts, etc etc etc etc etc, when your phone is stolen.
Bank account does have a passcode, mandatory. Steam as well. Privacy is kinda irrelevant, what’s a random thief going to do with my messages or grocery list?
Good thing i have a phone that’s not really marketable and thus not really tempting anyone to steal it.
But how likely is it that a phone gets stolen? Of course that might depend on a location, but locally that’s an anomaly. So it’s the old point of security feature itself becoming a bigger nuisance than the threat of whatever it’s trying to protect me from.
Some simple patterns code can be very quick to do, and not much different from a slide up, while still keeping most people out.
Honestly, I would guess you’re one of a very small minority, yeah. Because phones get lost, stolen, or confiscated by fascist “law enforcement” pretty commonly. Or someone you know picks it up while you’re gone.
Most people like a degree of privacy. Even my grandma has a pin on her phone.
Yeah I’ve noticed that most people are rather baffled when i say i have no passcode or anything on my phone.
I just find that the risk of any of the affirmationd things happening is low enough that it doesn’t outweigh the annoyance that comes from entering passcodes tens of times a day.
But I’m not in the USA so risk profiles are slightly different.
Most people like a degree of privacy.
313 million people have Meta accounts.
If it really was a low res camera that didn’t phone home, save data, and was difficult to hack into, for me personally the benefits would outweigh the (limited) privacy malus.
Everyone thinks they’re a good driver, but collisions still happen, and no one deserves to be killed by someone in a car.
If it was a closed circuit that had no way of sending info to anyone anywhere that would be one thing, but data is the new gold and, I dont trust governments or private businesses enough to give them access to a camera on me whenever I am driving.
Me neither. It’s a big if.
I dont like being constantly monitored
Then stay off public roads. Traffic lights, stop signs are just THE MAN telling us what to do.
What a false equivalence…
how has it helped you?
The only thing I can think of is that it detected you were sleepy when you knew that and had already chosen to continue driving
Yeah they definitely aren’t going to record you and share with coworkers for their entertainment. https://www.reuters.com/technology/tesla-workers-shared-sensitive-images-recorded-by-customer-cars-2023-04-06/
yet another reason why I dont like Teslas, or honestly any vehicles with onboard video recording and cellular connections.
The same people who hate on this also like to drive drunk or while watching tiktok.
My 2021 car has this. it has no cellular data connection or significant internal storage and the camera just has what I assume is a very basic neural net that looks for signs of distraction.
What? an actual fact?
Nononono…every driver will now be monitored by a committee in China.
What’s the make and model of the car?
How many more years before me never owning a car and never driving is enough to put me on a list?
I’m 42, living in the united states, never had a drivers liscense.
If they tried this over here, people would die. Because they’d force me to be behind the wheel of an automobile.
And thus, people would die.
The US does have this law. It’s just not enacted yet because there’s so much they’re demanding in the law and automakers say it’s not possible. But it doesn’t force someone who doesn’t drive to drive.
You’re on Lemmy. They already have you down on a list somewhere as a tankie
I won’t own anything made after 2015… That’s when LTE chips started becoming standard in cars…
I told my wife, my next car will have a carbuerator.
Glad my 2018 car only had 3G which I had removed at the dealership due to it causing battery drain so I’m good!
Yeah… 2015 was about where cellular connected cars started being ubiquitous… And of course car manufactures were too cheap to put two computers in the car (one for infotainment, the other for engine management) so the modem has direct access to the ECU, which means throttle control, brakes, steering(?!), everything.
A carburetor is a step too far, you invite misery, do you hate yourself? Take care, lol.
But yep would love to see more folks keeping old cars running, I won’t be taking the plunge into “~mortgage and routinely operate my own bubble of dystopian hellscape”, think I’ma pretty much lifetime “pass” on that flavor of nastiness.
Eh better then throttle body fuel injection. I drive carb, direct injection and throttle body. Never had much issues with carbs other then my fucking rototiller.
Carbs waste 30% more fuel.
I want my next car to be an ev… but with manual window winders
Get an old car that doesn’t run and an EV conversion kit.
Spend $40,000 to end up with a $5000 car.
You drama queens need to learn about black electrical tape.
I want my next car to be an ev… but with manual window winders
Then Slate has an EV for you!
Some of the happiest moments of my childhood were getting a holly six-pack dialed in perfectly on my old Javelin… And balancing a six-pack is tricky as hell… ;-)
I’m a FIRM believer in fix-first… Too many people treat cars as disposable… and I maintain that keeping a 60 year old classic on the road is better for the environment than any new car… We (the world, not just the US) produce nothing but crap these days…cars have a life-expency of about 5 years, 10 at the outside (if you’re a non-BMW built Toyota that is)
My 2014 is 12 years old and still runs like it’s brand new… I’ll get another 15 years out of it easily… And when the engine dies, I’ll replace it.
The only thing that kills cars permanently is rust…rust is the only true killer.
Ah, an ancient wizard, then - carry on lol.
If I’d grown up around people who understood and enjoyed cars, my life (read: curiosity) would probably have simply gone that direction.
Instead I learned a lotta other things well, and so I’ve come around to this badly and through some longer paths, lol. I envy what I assume to be your built-in, muscle-memory secrets.
And hell yeah, I drive and enjoy a 2006. Had it for some years, went very deliberately from a 2018 Mazda I really liked to this, consider it an improvement (no one else in my life does 😅).
Only “outsource” the stuff I know I can’t find time to learn and do, the thing is fundamentally easy to work on and understand. Delicious!
Same sort of thing coming to the US because of course.
I just bought an EV that was made before 2020. I’m going to learn all about rebuilding EV batteries.
Sounds like more ways for insurance companies to a) charge you more based on behaviors they arbitrarily determine are “bad”, and b) take your payments for years/decades then never pay out because they say something you did on video makes any accident your fault based on some term buried in the 500 page contract you obviously didn’t read all of.
They already do “a” by taking vehicle blackbox info uploaded by dealers or via telemetry and increasing your rate via their risk analysis. Note, your rates never go down for good driving. Only up.
I just want to rant about how dystopian car “insurance” is.
Set aside all the justifications / propaganda you’ve heard about car insurance, and think about how it actually works. You’re legally obligated to pay a corporation for the right to use your vehicle on public roads. What do you get out of it? For the vast majority of people nothing. Even if you get in an accident they’ll do their absolute damnedest not to pay you or to pay you a pittance that you could’ve covered with a fraction of the cumulative fee. That’s basically the text-book definition of a scam. Even if you do have “good” insurance (doubt) they’ll have higher prices due to all the scammy insurance companies. It’s a legally obligate scam – insurance has effectively turned every public road into a toll road.
Frankly, I feel this way about all forms of insurance, so I doubt anyone will take me seriously (It’s not hard to save and invest money, with that the entire notion of insurance kinda falls apart). Still legally obligatory insurance is a particularly disgusting form of oligarchical capture.
I used to think like you do. “How does this benefit me?”
But as a pedestrian who was hit by an uninsured driver, I can firmly tell you that you have no idea what you are talking about. Driving is not a constitutional right. It’s a privilege that the state gives to you. It’s extremely dangerous for those around you, so limiting the ability to drive very dangerous vehicles to people who are financially responsible isn’t the worst idea. You might even say, “but you can just sue the person who hit you if they don’t have insurance.” The response is to think about the kind of person who can’t afford $100/mo and how much you might be able to squeeze out of them in a lawsuit over $20,000 in repair bills.
as a pedestrian who was hit by an uninsured driver
Sorry that happened to you, that’s genuinely terrible.
That said, I think you should be angry at the cost of medicine and medical care rather than being angry at all poor people because one acted terribly. We should do everything we can to prevent people from being hit by cars, but I don’t think exploiting poor people for needing to get from one location to another is going to help lower incidence of pedestrian collisions. In my personal experience it’s usually the wealthier cars who drive more recklessly, but there’s certainly no mechanistic relation between being poor and being a bad driver. The poors aren’t inherently less capable of driving. (Unless, you know of a way to get insurance for free…)
$20,000 in repair bills
Just buy a new car. If your car repairs costs more than a year of my rent you need a cheaper car - or a better mechanic. I’m very sympathetic to people hit by cars - I think that’s terrible. I’m not at all sympathetic to rich (or “middle class”) people complaining about damage to their $100k+ vehicles. You can buy an used electric fleet van for ~$40k, and that’s just about as fancy as you could practically need. Anything beyond that is a show of status (many things below that are still a show of status), and I’d rather not pay a second tax to an oligarch so people with more money than sense can show off how much money they can waste.
Maybe 16 wheelers should have insurance, but it’s exploitation of the poor elsewhere.
Got it, so you think it is punishing to poor people to make them pay $60-$100/mo for the privilege of driving a dangerous vehicle that can cause many thousands of dollars in damage to both cars and people, but your response to high car repair bills is for poor people to “just buy a new car.” I don’t think you have thought your cunning plan all the way through. Notice how I never brought up medical bills, only car repair bills? That’s because I agree that health insurance should be covered by the state, not private insurance. Health care is a basic human right. Driving a car is not. You talk about exploitation of poor people through making them have insurance, but you ignore that poor people can also be the victim of bad drivers. If a poor person with a $5000 car who badly needs that car to drive to work gets their car totaled by a driver without insurance, your solution is for them to “just buy a new car.” Do you have any idea how dumb that sounds? Your main argument is that this poor person should not be expected to pay $100/mo for insurance, but you think it is totally fine to ask them to pay $5000 to get a new car that they need to get to work to pay off that car?
And if you think only the wealthier drivers drive more recklessly, you should drive in a really poor part of town. You know who doesn’t give a shit whether they crash their cars? The people who drive really shitty cars. The statistics back that up, too. Wealthy areas have lower serious traffic accidents per capita than lower income areas. They also have far lower traffic fatalities per capita, but that can be down to the safety of their expensive cars. People in sports cars do tend to drive faster, but rich moms in expensive SUVs do not.
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.
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.
It’s not a $20k repair bill I’m worried about, it’s the potential of $100k+ in medical liability that I’m really buying insurance for.
In my area there’s plenty of expensive cars driving around too, I somehow doubt the minimum $25k insurance would cover even half the cost of a totaled car + everything involved.
I didn’t mention the medical liability, since a modern civilized society shouldn’t need to have me worried about medical liability. I was lucky to have good insurance when I was a pedestrian hit by an uninsured driver. I wasn’t on the hook for my $60,000 in medical bills, because I had insurance. In a good society, I shouldn’t need private medical insurance to protect me if I get hit by an uninsured driver.
Now, if my new car gets totaled by a shitbox '88 Cutlass Cierra driven by a person who can barely even afford THAT car, then that’s where requiring insurance comes into play.
Should read up on the history of medical insurance, e.g. blue cross blue shield. The idea was that expensive payouts can happen early on during someone’s coverage, before they have a chance to build up savings. No one wants that to happen to them, so if everybody is in the pool of people who will pay for coverage, that risk is mitigated by being spread over a large group who only need to pay in a little at any time.
Rich people or institutions who can afford to self-insure don’t need insurance.
This original insurance was non-profit. The capitalist insurances are the ones realizing they can choose to only cover people who aren’t likely to need payouts, and profit off of the difference between pay ins and pay outs. I also agree this is a morally dubious system.
This particular example makes me uncomfortable because it implies there’s some circumstance where someone who couldn’t pay the monthly insurance bill would be turned away when they need serious medical attention. Like, I understand the logic of insurance being better than dying here, but it doesn’t really change the underlying logic of the situation being ‘oh they can’t pay we’ll just let them die’.
The government should just cover that with standard taxes. It shouldn’t even be government insurance where everyone is paying in an equal amount to make it ‘fair’. If we have to take more money from rich people than poor people to prevent deaths, just do it. The working class betters everyone. We should be treated well.
The scam in this case where you can’t wait / go without / buy cheaper is more rich people trying to find an excuse to not acknowledge how much the rest of society does for them.
That makes sense today; insurance was invented in a different time, by community members self-organizing.
Kind of a good idea if (and that’s a big fucking if) the videos just were properly protected. I mean how else could you prove cell phone use after a crash?
They don’t have the know-how and interest to protect the videos though so fuck this.
Distracted Driver detection is already really common in cars sold these days, and it’s a good security feature.
If you’re not comfortable with it, you can always opt to not operate heavy machinery - there are other ways to get around.
Yeah we are not pro loose cannon we are pro privacy and if they cannot secure or explain the technology then fuck them all.
The U.S. as well
Fuck this shit 100%
No way in hell I’m buying a car with that BS. I’ll ride a bike first.
deleted by creator
No way in hell I could buy a new car. They cost more than my house.
deleted by creator
It’s not wether it’s easily fooled or not. The thing is, I am not sure most of us agree with this regulation. So is this democratic after all?
And if it is, then people are dumb, stupid.
Politicians are fine with this because the cameras will just point at their chauffeurs.
deleted by creator
1080p stream in acceptable bitrate is around 1MB/s.
I think most of the privacy-violating and abuse-facilitating scenarios that we’re all too plausibly imagining could be served by the transmission and storage of even a single photograph per drive.
Why would car manufacturers even consider doing that? What is the purpose?
All of the existing consumer-surveillance tech seems to be focused on 1) Finding ways to make your attention more valuable to advertisers and 2) Selling information on your movements and proclivities to interested governments.
Pictures from inside a car could fit right in with those priorities. They could tell car makers, advertisers, insurers, and governments a lot about who really drives the car the most, that person’s demographics, taste in clothing, driving ability, distractability, fatigue levels, health issues, etc.
I should be clear: I’m absolutely speculating. But I don’t know how anyone might look at the landscape that exists today, with surveillance in our phones, our televisions, our music players, and our cars, and think that such speculation far-fetched or unrealistic.
They sell driving habits and other informatics to insurance companies at the very least, this is publicly known.
Many TVs these days form a mesh network using the TV of your neighbor, or his own neighbors until they find a device with WiFi access in order to call home.
No reason why cars can’t do that now that they’ve been made into computers with wheels. A trend that I absolutely despise.
wtf???
Have the car store its own data. You can fit 500GB on a micro SD card, think of the storage you could fit in an entire car.
Lower the framrate. 1080p at 60fps, but anything above 30 looks smooth, and you can go all the way down to 12-14 frames and still have pretty good video.
Run local event detection on the car, and only have it upload small segments of video when it detects certain events.
Allow a control device to request video that are stored on the car the next time the car checks in.
I think limiting the data collection in this way would allow full surveillance when desired, but not require a lot of overhead on the network.
Ultimately, the “limiting factor” for these kinds of systems is the human element. You can only hire so many people to review so much video in a given time period. AI is changing this, but even then, you can only hire so many people to review events flagged by AI in a given time period too.
Why would car manufacturers even consider doing that? What is the purpose?
All these fears and conjecture typically comes from paranoid Americans. In non shitholes, they have General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the EU AI Act. Essentially a HIPAA for personal data identification.
In Europe, the goal is to reduce:
-
Intoxicated driving
-
Distracted driving
-
Auto theft.
But Americans want to believe they are so important there is a committee of people in government watching their fascinating daily lives.
Homeland Security takes in petabytes of data every month and does nothing with it.
-
Why would they send all the footage and not just clips on demand? Why would they constantly record or monitor all cars, rather than just ones of special interest? Why would they need a 1080p stream when for a use case like this a much lower resolution at a fraction of the bitrate will be more than sufficient?
Maintaing 1MB/s stream is not a trivial task, especially if you want to do that for free. I might’ve slightly underestimated the core of the problem, it’s completely impossible to do that.
My guy have you not heard of 4G and 5G?
And at last: Why would car manufacturers even consider doing that? What is the purpose?
AI training data, or because the government clandestinely told them to.
deleted by creator
My guy have you not heard of 4G and 5G?
So you think they are hiding an undetectable iPhone in your car for free?
The actual mobile broadband hardware for your phone is like the size of a dime. Also, if you have a little “Shark Fin” on the top of your car, you might consider looking in there…
Hiding? Modern vehicles straight up have cell modems and advertise it, look up Toyota Connected Services for example.
They aren’t giving you an eSim for free.
Cell companies can give those out for free if they want to… What they offer to consumers is absolutely not the same as what they might offer to a car company at bulk rates. They could even have the car store data and wait for low usage times to upload, it would cost cell providers almost nothing
They might even leverage it to use up bandwidth so they don’t have to sell to secondary carriers if they wanted to one day…
Are you saying they have a secret program where they illegally take your data and to pass this data around without your permission they have a secret bulk deal with telecoms peoviders
Not exactly secret or illegal, they are actively selling driving data to insurance companies already. Stuff like speeding, hard breaking, etc.
It’s not widely advertised, but it’s less secret and more “hidden in the fine print”. It’s right there in the open though
They don’t call it illegal, but yes.
That’s why they’re taking the video.
So they are taking a video of you and in exchange giving you $10-50/month worth of data access?
Data doesn’t cost that much.
for the amount of money they would profit just from selling that data to insurance companies is enough to cover a fucking esim.
also, i forgot that cars are free these days and not thousands of dollars.
Are you saying they have a secret program where they illegally take your data and sell it to insurance companies?
it’s run by aliens and lizard people.
i am suggesting that doing so would be profitable.
i don’t believe this would be illegal.
and who is going to pay for petabytes of data storage very week?
Your comment literally melted my brain cells.
deleted by creator
And those cars age out. Eventually your old used cars have this.
And by then, there’ll be a bypass.
Or by then the surveillance system will break.
I bought a secondhand Ascent and since it relies on 3G it bitched about there being no network, then gave up. Radio and CD player both work fine though. That’s all I need.
deleted by creator
