this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2026
478 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

86145 readers
4138 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
478
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 1 day ago by beep@piefed.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
236 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
[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tristynalxander@mander.xyz 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 points 7 hours ago

That makes sense today; insurance was invented in a different time, by community members self-organizing.