I meant the banking industry over leveraging themselves into extinction and then walking it off because if subsidies and bailouts
- 0 Posts
- 4 Comments
- Senal@programming.devtoTechnology@lemmy.world•Meta Buried Research Linking Instagram To Teen Harm While Facing $1.4 Trillion Penalty That Could Erase Its Entire WorthEnglish13·4 days ago
- Senal@programming.devtoTechnology@lemmy.world•Meta Buried Research Linking Instagram To Teen Harm While Facing $1.4 Trillion Penalty That Could Erase Its Entire WorthEnglish5·4 days ago
** The banking industry, hiding in the corner looking sheepish **
- Senal@programming.devtoTechnology@lemmy.world•All Cars Sold in the EU Now Require a Camera Aimed at Your Face. It’s Still Not Clear Where That Data GoesEnglish151·5 days ago
The mandate says nothing about cameras specifically.
I thought it did as well but it only specifies this :
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.
Don’t get me wrong, manufacturers are going to have a fucking field day with all of the shit they’ll try and get in under this banner of “safety” and they will almost certainly work their monetisation shenanigans in around this.
It might seem like that wording prohibits data collection, but it doesn’t cover all the bases a team of well paid lawyers would be able to come up with. Or they could just do what they normally do and just ignore the “no data collection” part and pay the
cost of doing business taxfine and rake in multiples of that fine in profits.My point is , it doesn’t specify cameras, so theoretically a company could come up with a non-face-scanning way of doing this and use that instead.
will they ?..fuck no…but they could if they wanted to.
Which is arguably worse.
edit : A note to say that I’m not arguing against the safety aspects of this , they might be fully valid, i’m arguing that it’ll be abused for profit in any way the companies think will give them a positive ROI.
I’ve been in a car that lightly shook the steering wheel and pedals when you approached the speed limit.
That was super disconcerting because I didn’t know it existed until my steering wheel started moving on it’s own.