Federal Surveillance Tech Becomes Mandatory in New Cars by 2027
I can't. I just can't.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/federal-surveillance-tech-becomes-mandatory-161321992.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucmVkZGl0LmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMJ7J4AdvhIXi34MQzQE4UBpOKNL2_ucdyVySZpEbAvYgS3zp6tGZTxL9nM2FCHI5mmS8eF3QEgw6Kc7cNEVbRcm5_cWBMqmKB-kMNi0afCvARtNbXKrCGGVpbPVAZVRY7auqFncVhqfATqwWZsOYB1CI62j4pDRY5_1bq35tVKsOpen linkView original on discuss.online854
Comments405
And when all the used cars are gone and I'm forced to buy one of these I'll promptly be destroying the radio transmitters and everything related to this surveillance.
Straight to jail.
Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 local currency units.
Is it actually illegal or is that a joke?
the "surveillance" seems to happen on the car locally. Kind of an expansion of current driver attention systems to include impairment detection.
"Local" surveillance happening on the same car computer that's attached to a SIM card.
Yeah seems safe
It's local right until the law enforcement gets into Bluetooth range with the right encryption keys to download all of the data for the past year.
Bold of you to assume any of this will be encrypted.
I remember when we discovered that militants in Afghanistan were monitoring Predator video feeds because apparently nobody had ever put in a requirement that the video stream be encrypted.
https://www.networkworld.com/article/769321/insurgents-intercept-video-feeds-from-u-s-drones-using-26-software-report-says.html
IIRC that was because the Predator video feeds were intended to be viewed in-theatre by officers right there on the front, and military protocol around encryption keys would have made it so no one at the front would have been able to decrypt the feed.
Considering they were designed in the early 90s, i.e. before public-key cryptography took off with SSL, that explanation always seemed plausible to me.
SSH keys for remote access.
Local storage encryption would be pointless because the keys would be local as well.
It'll be like the 70s in the US again. Rip out all the bullshit smog stuff and put on a new carb. Because a v8 mustang shouldn't be making 130hp.
Why are govts like this suddenly? All in a arms race against privacy?
Because late stage capitalism, lobbyists pushed legislators to allow data collection so that it can be sold to insurance companies who also lobbied so that they can charge more for premiums.
Every company makes more profit.
We don't live in a democracy anymore.
Guillotine insurance companies. They're just scummy middle-men that seek profit at the cost of everyone else
Rich people avoid them too. They use bonds in some states, and collect interest on the bond to boot.
Not suddenly. It's been going on at least as far back as 2001. Probably more. It's generally not the gov't either as the gov't is mostly driven by moneyed private interests like large corporations. They always push in different ways to get more power to make profit. Get rid of a regulation, make new regulation, get a subsidy, limit rights to resist some abuse, etc. Sometimes it's just more obvious that others in general, or it's in an are we personally pay attention to, and we're like WTAF.
The commodification of life itself.
Once you understand that we are just livestock to those in charge, a lot of their behavior starts to make more sense.
They're scared of the likes of Luigi and paper Mario. More and more people are getting fed up
Control, why else?
There are valid concerns about crazy surveillance bills, but this specific one is overreaction.
Basically the 2021 infrastructure bill asks NHTSA to come with a standard to detect impaired driving (it doesn't say how it should be implemented, the camera watching us is author's imagination how it would be implemented) and if there is no technology available then they should publish a yearly report describing current state of things.
Because of the yearly report requirement I've been reading similar article saying that this will happen in 2026. That's how I learned about first.
You can find the reports here: https://www.nhtsa.gov/reports-to-congress
I think those overreacting articles are doing disservice because they distract us from actually dangerous things like for example bills like the one trying to incorporate age verification into OS requiring for example Microsoft verifying our identity before we can use their OS.
Not many people realized that bill like this already sneaked and was signed into law in California for example. It mandates this starting 2027.
Its been like this my entire life. When I was in high school in the 90s one of my teachers said the greatest battle your generation will fight will be for privacy. Little did they know there would be no fight. The general public doesn't seem interested in caring about things and voting with their wallet. Now we've reached this point where the game is up and companies have realized the masses will buy their products because people perceive that they "need" them and can't do without which gives them free reign to do whatever they want.
I am deeply frustrated that people aren't getting more involved. I link them to groups, I show them the consumer rights wiki, I talk to people about getting involved politically at the local level... So few people care. Things are going to have to get much worse before they take action, best thing we can do is have the framework in place for when they finally wake up.
Because the people vote for such governments.
Well in part it’s just being perceived that way. The car will decide if you’re drunk somehow becomes government surveillance. The App Store will ask for proof of age: government surveillance. And so on.
I’m not saying that this is a false interpretation but certainly it’s leaned on extremely hard in the way people report on and talk about these things. Hence why you get the sense that everyone everywhere is suddenly completely about government surveillance.
I think we could have a whole conversation about drunk driving and the efficacy and fairness of this kind of measure without even cracking the lid on government surveillance. But no one wants that. Nope, if it isn’t a direct descent straight into Fascism, it doesn’t get clicked on.
It's almost like dozens of major companies are going on a blitz of heavy public surveillance projects that are very publicly selling that data directly to the government... So when yet another of those companies already doing those things Congress up with a new surveillance method, people can do the math
as someone who has dealt with over 20 years of pulling victims, alive and dead, from crashes caused by drunks (am firefighter not terrible driver..) I can say this won’t help shit. Just give more data (profit) to corporations and be used in rights violating ways.
It's never actually about safety
Yup, same old "think of the children" excuse. It's a carrot on a string so you don't look at the stick.
Nothing is perfect, but the GSR2 for example has undoubtedly saved many lives. The problem isn't with the technology, but that you don't have any real privacy laws in the US.
Like the EU is any better. Last I checked, France is passing the same kind of bullshit over and over, too.
Oh privacy died in the United States decades ago.
Nobody cares because we're all fat, happy and comfortable.
Once rights are taken, violence is the only way to get them back. History is a wonderful teacher.
There actually is a problem with the technology in this case. It sounds like what they're proposing is eye tracking, which is not reliable with some eye shapes, eye makeup, dry eye, etc. and any markers they use to try to detect drunkenness would also trip for people with legitimate eye problems. Anecdotally, I once drove a Tesla and it locked me out of cruise control because the tracker thought I was falling asleep. Imagine if the car refused to start at all!
Why do you think this will not help?
because drunks find a way to make trouble. they’ll get around the tech glitches in the imperfect deployments. they’ll be alert enough to trick it. etc. they’ll drink while driving and the system won’t see that and the impairment won’t be recognized till its too late. (i’m focused on system concerns because I am also a software engineer and know the realities of large scale tech like this.)
to counter the tech I think the punishments for impaired driving (including cell phone use) should be harsh and without kindness, if you cause another person harm. Federally. With no return of your privileges once convicted.
While I am very much anti-government, if I am not going to be allowed to “follow up” with someone who drank and ran over a family member, etc… then we might as well push the lawmakers to do their jobs with the laws we already have. Not make new ones that are clearly there to profit tech and not save lives.
It is readily proven that punishment does not work as a deterrent mechanism against criminal behavior, including drunk driving. Most crime is done on impulse, with no consideration of future consequences, regardless of how impactful those consequences may be.
The solution is proper public transit and urban design going back to focusing on pedestrian-centric instead of being car-centric. But that's a much larger societal issue and unfortunately people don't like the effort that it requires so they incessantly search for a quick fix "solution" that just puts a bandaid over the problem instead of solving it.
The law is doing its job, the law wasn't created to help people, but to serve the interests of the ruling class. Naive to think these new policies aren't the law doing what it was always intended to do.
while this is a set of fair points, my thoughts were not on punishment as a deterrent; it was on punishment to simply remove them from the road permanently.
i agree safety tech is good. seat belts to drowsy eye tech .. all good. what I don’t see is the tech for drink driving specifically being tenable in a for profit nightmare world we live in. Subscription for the interlocking lapse? car is offline. Etc.
If they could make it offline, serviceable and calibrated as simply as an oil change, and buy once tech… cool.
Removing them from the road is a complicated issue with the stated issues of public transit access being limited. Limiting someone permanently from driving in some places might as well be a death sentence depending on their finances, which is also a big issue with punishment as a deterrent. The point of punishment is inherently to coerce people's actions by way of threatening them with socially harmful consequences enforced by the state to deter them from acting in specific ways as dictated by law. Revoking their license and removing them from the road is the threat that is supposed to deter people from drunk driving. Yet, removing an offender does nothing to prevent more drunk driving from happening, thus not solving the issue at hand, as drunk driving is an impulse decision made in the moment (usually being a result of how convenient and accessible alternative means of traveling to the intended destination are) and not an action that is made out of habit or direct choice, though there are exceptions to this but those are also much larger issues usually, like mental health and such.
That's all a much larger discussion, though, and let's not digress.
The issue at hand is with privacy and data collection with cameras that are recording in modern cars with onboard computers connected to cellular networks via SIM cards. I would not put it past modern, capitalist driven companies to not utilize this for those ends under the guise of it being for "public safety".
They can claim it is offline but so long as the vehicle computer that it is recording to is connected, which most modern ones are, then it is a privacy vulnerability risk that I absolutely believe modern companies will abuse; the most probable excuse being "analytics data collection for improving the device operations". There are ways around it, like disabling the modem, but that puts unnecessary burden on the consumer which may void warranties and the like.
All that does is create the problem of driving unlicensed, so now you imprison nonviolent offenders (assuming they aren't convicted of vehicular homicide type of charges).
I understand the sentiment, but the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head here very quickly.
what’s nonviolent about having harmed someone while choosing to drive impaired?
also i 100% agree public transportation should be improved too.
but it’s disgusting how many times I see folks who have multiple accidents causing harm to others and are still allowed to drive.
Last year I drove my parent's car which is equipped with one of these cameras that determine if the driver is distracted or dozing. And I can say for certain that it works. I honestly wish that my car had this sort of a system.
I view this tech like a padlock. Sure some people will do whatever they can to get around it, but it keeps honest people honest. If it can reduce deaths on the road from drunk and tired drivers even by a little bit then isn't that worth it?
I'm not sure what you mean by not being able to follow up... Driving drunk and killing someone is already punished harshly, and you can even follow up civilly; it's called a wrongful death suit.
Honest people don't need the government to spy on them to not drive drunk though?
What about their proposed solution requires any of this data to leave the vehicle?
The law says nothing about keeping the data in the vehicle, so it will 100% be sent outside the vehicle. Most modern cars already transmit your data so why would they change anything?
You are right. Because the law says nothing about the requirements. They haven't decided on them yet. Come back when they propose something.
It doesn't work on everyone. These systems have trouble with certain eye shapes, eye makeup, etc.
I think the NHTSA is more looking at detecting alcohol on the driver's breath passively. But yes, there will always be cases where technology does not work optimally.
I rented two different modern (2015-2016) Mercedes SUVs. They both had systems that detected tired/inattentive driving. I was neither but after several hours on the road both vehicles would alert that it was time to take a break with a nice little coffee icon. I was conversing with a passenger, driving fine, not wandering between lanes/etc.. The first time I kind of doubted myself but subsequent notifications both the passenger and myself were agreeing that we had no idea what it was upset about.
The newer car had another sensor that would get upset if your grip on the steering wheel got too light. That was kind of neat to see how much leeway it'd give you before it got antsy.
Probably because you were driving for a few hours. That makes sense. You may not feel it but driving is an active task that takes more effort than just sitting in a chair.
I would much rather have this system have false positives rather than not have it at all.
I am not willing to trade a modicum of safety for one of the greatest privacy and ownership violations of all time.
They will really do anything before investing in public transit
Automobile-centric infrastructure was such a colossal societal fuck-up.
Bad for personal health, physical safety, household finances, and the environment. Automobiles are not a symbol of freedom, they are a symbol of dependence.
While I agree about automobile centric structure, when rural living automobiles are absolutely the ticket to freedom. It's a shame more populace areas get designed around maintaining dependence on cars.
I think the point is choice. Even those living in suburban and urban areas have a difficult time opting out of car-dependence.
If you choose to live rural, I would say that automobiles are part and parcel to that decision. It's just the nature of low population density.
Except for the thousands of years that humanity was able to exist in low population density towns and villages completely fine without the need for personal vehicles.
That statement just isn't true in the slightest. It's only part of rural living because that's how it has been designed in roughly the last century of human society.
There is no materially restrictive reason it has to be this way. It is entirely a problem that is artificially created.
Should we go back to the horse and buggy?
Love the quote, not the context. It’s a legitimate question. We got ride of horses in rural areas due to cars. In North America and Canada in particular the distances are so vast that rural public transportation is not really feasible
It's only a ticket to freedom because rural living is structured like ass. It's a bandaid on a bigger, festering issue of poor city planning.
This is true in many cases, but for very rural living (eg people living on farms) there's not much you can do about car-centric design
Except this is entirely false of a claim. Human society worked for thousands of years before the car. European countries prove it is possible as well with their rural public transit services. It is absolutely not a necessity. There is no reason to design our cities and towns around personal vehicles being the primary method of transportation.
I agree with you wholeheartedly that car centric urban design is a bad thing. Truly, I do. But in very rural places in North America, you either need a car or a horse and buggy, or something, and the car seems like an obvious upgrade. Just because they can do public transit in rural areas in Europe does not mean we can do it here. Because the size comparisons aren't even close. European countries with good rural transportation are dealing with significantly less landmass than North American rural communities are.
To put things in perspective, Denmark is 42,947km^2^, and Canada is 9,984,670 km^2^. That means that you could fit almost 232 and a half Denmarks in Canada. Despite this about half of the population of Canada in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor, which is only 1,150 km-long, and about 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the US border. That means that the vast majority of Canada is totally rural, and there are often vast distances between towns and First Nations. It is simply not economically feasible to build rail lines to connect all these places, let along sending out regular train services to these places.
To really hammer the point home, consider Nunavut, a territory in Canada. It is 2,093,190 km^2^. For perspective, Ukraine (the second-largest country in Europe after Russia) is 603,549km^2^. That means you could almost put three and a half Ukraine's in Nunavut (and again, Ukraine is the second-largest country in Europe!). And Nunavut is extremely rural, with a population of 36,858 (and Ukraine has 32283000 people, meaning that Nunavut has 875.87 times fewer people than Ukraine). The largest population centre in Nunavut is Iqaluit, which has only 7,429 people.
So putting aside, for a second, the extreme logistical challenges with creating railways in Nunavut (due to terrain, ice, etc), how can we possibly build public transit to connect the entire territory? When we are dealing with places this vast, and this rural, we simply not economically feasible to build rural public transit. Even reality wealthy countries like Canada cannot afford to fund megaprojects like that. And again, this is just Nunavut, 1 of 13 provinces / territories. When you look at the entirety of Canada, it is simply not realistic to have rural public transit servicing the entire country. I'm sure it's possible in small countries like Denmark, but not here.
But that doesn't change the fact that, within cities at least, we should of course do our best to get rid of car centric design.
Only because we have made society this way. There is ZERO material necessities that stipulate that it must be this way. None, absolutely nadda.
Other countries have done it. The size argument is bullshit, China is able to do it and has equivalent landmass. No excuses. The entire point of trains was to traverse these vast expanses. Trains are what drove the Westward expansion of American society. So arguing that trains can't handle those distances is absurd.
Also, public transit is more than just trains, it's also walkability and bus services. Cars can exist in society without them being the primary method of transportation.
"Economically feasible" is a bullshit excuse because we create the economy. If the economy can't meet the needs of people then the economy is what needs to change, not force people to go without BASIC SERVICES. Money is not a materially limiting factor.
Humanity existed without cars (or a horse and buggy since someone made that flippant response) for hundreds of years and we absolutely can restructure our societies to go back to being pedestrian centric in both urban AND rural locations. It is entirely possible and there is no legitimate excuse not to. Economically feasible as stated is not a legitimate excuse.
More efficient, sure, but their argument was about freedom, which is just a different dimension. In an extreme example, private jets provide more freedom than public transportation does, even though it's obvious which one is worse for the environment, more expensive, more intrusive, etc.
Your point is good up until you start naively slandering Anarchism out of nowhere. Way to absolutely undermine yourself there.
That's what marxists do here. Note how he can't even say anything about it beyond his random slander.
Wanna bet he thinks anarchists need left unity too?
What anarchist supports car ownership bullshit in America?
Yup, drunkards in a tram are annoying but they almost never kill people and cause tens of thousands in damage.
thank you for that almost. jackasses like me see words like always and never as challenges and this is not one i want to take
Reminder that this requires all vehicles be SOLD with the tech. It says nothing about what happens to it after purchase.
It'll be like every other car with driver assistance and every other advanced feature now, everything gets strapped to the same CANbus and unified powerttrain control module so disabling one part of the system causes the car to get stuck in limp mode, have constant nusiance alerts, and fail state inspections to get registered.
Good news is if you have an expensive enough car you'll get an asshat mode.
Just pull the fuse for the onstar radio. It can log all it wants locally.
They prevented that from working years ago. Now it's usually on a critical circuit that you can't just disable.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
Every technical hurdle they put up, is defeatable.
Every time they make the wall higher, we make the ladder longer.
There will come a time where there will be a privacy-conscious choice and that might require flashing the infotainment system.
We're getting closer to one of Cory Doctrows stories. I can't find a direct link, but its on this page under the name "Plausible Deniability"
Funny, that is the opposite take that Cory has had recently. His argument has basically morphed to the opinion that, while individual action is cool, this stuff pretty much can only be defeated by collective action. You can't shop (or hack) your way out of living in the surveillance state. If everyone else is being surveiled, you get pulled in by association.
I don't quite agree, and think we will always have to exercise some individual choice to protect ourselves. I am not sure that disabling a radio is enough though, if every other car on the road is covered in cameras and streaming data constantly.
You can do both? Push for collective action and defeat the devices that are being put in front of you.
The difference is, there are now tariffs: https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/115819402267996681
There's also a recording of his talk, it's quite good IMO.
Thanks for sharing this, the fiction is astoundingly horrifying yet vital in timeliness.
To be perfectly blunt, no not every hurdle is defeatable. To even consider that to be true is fucking retarded. There is a point where your option is to deal with it or use something else.
Modifications can be made illegal, hardware can be made unobtainable legally outside of vendor contracts, real time motion data to insurance can be mandated, etc.
Even if you go out of your way to bypass everything you can The simple fact is, at some point you WILL be pulled over or get into an accident. And at that point if the powers that be decide what you did breaks a law then your still fucked. Or that you broke your insurance contract with your modifications.
Just because you can do something doesnt mean you can get away with it if caught. And everyone's caught at some point. You either end up in jail or uninsurable and monetarily fucked.
You should read the short story.
That's the whole point of the story.
But yes, it will always be possible to remove this sludge. You may have to fight for your rights to do so. That fighting might involve setting things on fire.
I work peripheral to data science. I am starting to think the defense is never to be a hole in the data. AI is incredible at filling in missing data.
What you want to do is poison the data about you. AI is absolutely terrible at weeding out bad or especially intentionally misleading data. You can even protect others if you do it right.
My bolt euv doesn't transmit after I pulled the fuse.
Happy for you, but onstar shares the infotainment circuit on my vehicle. The only way to disable it is to dismantle the dash, remove the whole infotainment unit, and remove the circuit board for onstar. Which likely has some warranty implications, as well.
Hope to get to it soon, but what a hassle.
If there's enough demand, I imagine that there will be shops that will do it without individuals having to research it.
If the manufacturer designs it so that I have to disassemble the entire engine just to replace the spark plugs, I'm still going to be irritated even if I can just pay some people a ton of money to replace them for me.
I mean, yeah, just saying that if lots of people want it done, it's probably gonna be more-efficient to take that route. Like tinting windows or other popular aftermarket modifications.
I'm trying to figure out of this is just the distracted driving safety feature that's been on every car I've bought in the last 6 years. If so it can be disabled and really isn't that big of a deal when it's enabled. Just sends you an alert when it detects you weaving within the lane a little too much. I can't help but think this article might be a little sensationalistic.
These things aren't going to just give you an alert. They're going to disable the car if it thinks you're impaired.
The car manufacturers even warned the government about false positives that they can't prevent and Congress moved ahead anyway.
https://startupfortune.com/your-2027-car-may-watch-your-eyes-and-decide-whether-you-are-fit-to-drive/
Your link actually answers my question. They're already in most cars, mine included. The data isn't being transmitted to the government. The manufacturer would be able to access it, sure, but that's nothing now. It also doesn't mean that every car is going to have eye monitoring equipment - most of the cars that already have it don't.
Look I'm not saying I support this law but the articles posted here are very sensationalistic.
Removing "safety features" from a car is illegal, btw
And when they call the infotanmint crap a "safety feature" and no one lynched a lawmaker over it we know that as a people we have given up.
Unjust laws are not to be followed.
Onstar is safety for the government, not for the driver.
I am never buying a car built after 2016
Why 2016 specifically?
It depends on the make but that’s when I feel cars tipped the scale to becoming appliances
2018 makes more sense, that's when backup cameras were mandatory so since they were putting in a screen manufacturers made every car have an 'infotainment' center and with all of that processing power comes logging and other privacy invading features.
Really I don't go past 2008 myself. That was a cliff car manufactures went off after the sub prime mortgage fun fun time.
Naaaaah, my 2016 RAV4 Hybrid is balling. Back up camera, 360 sensors, remote start, heated seats, medium screen with buttons and knobs instead of touch, push start, stick shift, and the best part: no wifi on-board (through my phone only). Cars peaked right here.
I have a 2016 outback. No android auto... But I'm in the same boat. Backup camera. Sensors self driving no wifi no forced updates. Etc.
I don't need anything more.
Praying for our cars to survive at least another 15 years, bud 🙏
I daily a 1985, how boned do you think I am?
Yeah agreed. One of the great things about the outback is there's a DIY group around it. So there's a lot of YouTube videos out there on car maintenance and upgrades etc So that kind of where I'm at with it these days too
Oh, your going to fix that yourself? Or pay someone to do it?
honestly i haven't been able to fix anything myself since my 1989 three horsepower crapstack. not enough room in the engine compartment. I've got a good mechanic tho, so it's not too much of a problem.
I like fixing my own crap and used to fix laptops and the like in my old job. I am fairly comfortable working on anything 2008 and before, basicly as long as the car is not using fucking canbus or serialized parts. Had enough canbus in my life from the damned German cash recyclers.
Hm. Well I certainly agree that privacy invasive stuff is absolutely unwelcome but I'm also a pretty big fan of backup cameras. I bought a 2023 and while it does have the "infotainment" and backup can, outside of that it's all quite dum and everything outside of like bluetooth paring and general infotainment stuff is all physical buttons.
So really my point is while it is unusual, even brand new vehicles can manage to avoid the privacy nightmare.
Oh yeah, I like backup cameras too and they're probably saving a lot of people from injury or death. Very much worth requiring, IMO.
It's just the fact that many of these companies saw the opportunity to monetize the hardware that regulations were forcing them to install so we started seeing a lot more "data harvesting".
If you were going to pick a year to avoid, 2018 makes logical sense from that perspective.
Cars have been privacy nightmares for quite a while. People simply do not care.
Many don’t even know to start caring.
I care. But they make it really hard to remove or disable that shit.
Toyota did it lazily in my '21 Rav4, just pull the fuse for the modem and it doesn't care. Just don't let a dealer plug into the system in case that data can still be downloaded physically
good luck having it serviced without a computer
I think, you better can buy cars without will that fancy shit and add features by aftermarket devices than doing it any using all that closed eco system crap from the manufacturer.
I refuse to tie my (new to me) car to the internet or my phone, so I use the aux jack, CD player, and have a garmin perched on the dash, despite the fucking car having 5 screens.
A $15 amazon bluetooth to radio device (that has a usb c fast charging port in it) has been all I need to move from old car to old car and have what I want in a car. Honestly most of what is in those systems is not worth the hassle of dealing with the touch screen.
Especially touch screens suck so hard when driving...
One of the strangest tricks we have been convinced is not shit.
People don't really have a choice.
When you've got an eight lane highway between you and your destination, there's not a lot of alternatives to get where you want to go.
How about limiting the insanely bright headlights first?
We need to scrap the entire US government and start over.
2027, year of Linux car, or bicycle.
A linux bicycle sounds like a cool project! I've been wanting to add a mini a pc to my bike, to track trips and display important navigational information, but to connect to my local home server rather than some black box service.
Dynamo lighting has gotten really efficient. It wouldn't be cheap, but would be so cool to make a fully human-powered Linux bike. https://www.bikeradar.com/advice/buyers-guides/bike-dynamos
my ebike definitely doesn't have a modem.
pretty sure it doesn't have a modem.
fuck i'm gonna go have a paranoid freakout and wrap that fucker in wire mesh be back in a week
The day the vehicle I paid for doesn't work because a goddamn sensor thinks I'm not fit to drive is the day I break my foot off in someone's ass.
Fuck this dystopian shit show we're creating for ourselves.
Vote better.
Every technology is eventually used against you by the state
It's so difficult to get excited about new tech anymore.
Big tech is the problem. Indie tech is still cool as shit.
https://www.gadgetreview.com/federal-surveillance-tech-becomes-mandatory-in-new-cars-by-2027
Can we post the original sources and not middle men?
"I dont want a chinese car because it would just spy on me"
The used car market looks mighty good right about now.
It’s 1984 and no one cares
What the fuck? When did Congress pass this, and why wasn't there a huge public outcry against it?
2021
This shit is why biden didnt arrest trump. Democrats need him to drive voters their way. To use the trdump as a club to hit any one who has a independent thought.
Drunk driving is one thing but it will also judge how tired you are? Driving tired is dangerous. Unfortunately a huge portion of our economy runs on people working too many hours at too many jobs. A huge invasion of privacy with all sorts of knockon effects.
For the people who think they will disable this. You won't be able to without also disabling your car and voiding your warrenty.
Unlikely as that would mean any fault with the system would disable the car which would be a PR nightmare.
These systems can generally be disabled without more than an error light on the dash.
A car warranty lasts like 2 years. I can't afford a car less than 2 years old.
The sad part is that I did some math on my shitty car spending (I have a problem with buying old weird cars) and I found that I was actually way ahead of people with a car payment. Like we are talking about having 7 interesting shit boxes (3 or so on the road at any time) and repairs coming out less then the cost of financing. Shits gotten wild.
One of the few upsides to Hyundai 10 year warranty may not be perfect. But it pretty much makes sure the car at least goes vroom the entire time.
Open source hardware needs to be built up more. To do that we need more new people active in that to get different things done. Including vehicles
My car is constantly telling me to drive with both hands or yo get coffee when I am driving fine.
Many years ago I had a somewhat scary car accident and since I drive very cautiously and never speed. Yet this fucking thing is still yelling at me all the time.
If I could figure out how it decides to yell at me, I would unplug it.
What car is that? So that I know never to buy or suggest one
Every new car has a million alerts and beeps and warnings and its sensory hell
Yeah the beeps and bongs are not a new thing. Clarkson raged about it 20+ years ago. "I KNOW THE DOOR IS OPEN THERES A HUGE GAP NEXT TO ME"
No, that's not even close to how bad it is now. Hell, I bought a car that's a decade old and the fucker yells at me for being to close to the lines, yells if I'm approaching a stopped car "too fast" (which means it freaks out even when I'm slowing past 25 with 4-5 SUV lengths ahead of me), when I back up and there's anything remotely close off to the side (remotely close is the 2.5 ft on either side of me as I back out my driveway), and it gives me an extra special freak out if there's any possible cross traffic to 4 houses on either side of me. That last one is a nice warning the few times I've needed it, but more often than not, it's spazzing out over the neighbors taking their dog out on the other side of the street.
I have a 2023 and while it does those things by default every single one of them can be turned off.
The front collision and the movement behind were left on because they occasionally help. Lane assist and the proximity got turned off immediately because of so many false alarms.
I've had my gfs accord emergency brake on me twice. One was coming to a hairpin turn on a mountain and an rv had pulled off onto a turn out for us to pass. And another was several car lengths away from a car making a turn into a drive way. Neither of which were even remotely close to an accident. It just freaked out.
And I've had tons of beeps for side streets with cars park along a gentle curve which the car doesn't understand the fucking road turns. I HATE all the tech.
Yeah I didn't mean to say that its been that bad forever. Its gotten worse in the last 10-15 years. But it started ages ago, back in the ancient times. I remember my 1987 Volkswagen had a buzzer if I had lights on when the ignition was off. That was a good thing to have tbh, especially back then. But now you get a warning bong just because you have a kilogram of apples on the back seat.
!!!! WARNING !!!! DRINK COFFEE !!!! BLADDER DANGEROUSLY EMPTY !!!!
Ford Fusion
I suspected as much. The only car I've ever seen with a coffee symbol. That alert can be disabled in the settings. At least, it's easy in the turbo gen 2 fusions (2013-2020) with the single dial gauge and dual screens in the dash. Not sure if the 2.5l gen 2 (or any gen 1) has that alert in the more basic single screen dash.
Gen 2 is a great car otherwise because it's a rebadged EU Mondeo.
Bless you. I’ll dig around in the menus and find it.
One of the greatest things. When someone gives you something that helps to stop something that was annoying you regularly. A good day!
It's the lane assist I believe. If it detected you using the land assist too much, it will send you those alerts. Essentially, you either drive too close to the lines, weave in and out of them too much, your sensors are bad, or your city has bad lines lol. You can turn off lane assist in every Ford I know of. Usually a button on the turn indicator stick. Check your manual though.
It does have lane assist but I only turn that on when I’m doing highway driving.
Many cars that can tell that, senses wether or not you give any resistance whenever it corrects the lane position. If it doesn't feel any resistance, it'll assume you're not actually holding the steering wheel. Try keeping a firmer grip of the wheel.
I have to admit to developing the habit of wiggling the steering wheel regularly. Unfortunately that doesn’t help for camera based systems
Instructions unclear, steering wheel now layered in zip ties
Looks like I'll need to start stockpiling old camrys and corollas in addition to hard drives, routers, motherboards, ram, dumb TVs, flip phones/whatever else they're taking away this year.
Let's spoof the data and say we did it
Now with better cropping!
It wasn't my fault! I just uploaded the first picture I found on google. It was already not cropped!
No worries mate!
Only drive cars made before Onstar and similar systems were added in the early 90s. They have been tracking you for a long time. But even then you need a license plate, which is constantly collected in most urban areas, stored and sold. It's really impossible to travel anywhere even if you have no phone giving away your location. Flock and all the surveillance systems also tie into the license plate data. Cars began having cell connections and other ways to broadcast data after the onstar type systems were added. Now it's a whole other world with the amount of data cars like Tesla can collect. /OldManRant
You said it yourself. While I understand the thought behind "let's not make it easy for them", it's going to be easy for them no matter what you drive. Keeping a 40+ year old car on the road is going to be prohibitively expensive for most people. Also, OnStar systems from that far back will be based on radio infrastructure that doesn't even exist anymore. Even 3g towers are rare these days and that wasn't launched until the 2000s.
Another system to allow hackers into your automobile. The federal government could use the biometric data from car for passport photos. On the other hand, I despise drivers under the influence.
If this comes to Canada I'll be driving an electric scooter or bike.
What about in the winter? 😭
Snowmobile time! (but I do see people cycling in -40c weather)
Where I live people genuinely commute by snowmobile.
Ah nice, are there any cool old ones around?
Unironically though snowmobiles are one of the main means of transport in Nunavut
Well yeah, there are not a lot of roads at all. And snowmobiles are really good for that environment.
i mean i'm in california so all i gotta do is dress for rain, but you can kit out a bike for snow pretty easy. snow tires are not hard to make and if you want you can put a ski on the front tire.
A ski would be a nightmare. Ski bikes for downhill slopes are one thing, but self-propelling a bike with a ski would majorly suck. The only reason a bike balances is because of tiny steering inputs to the front wheel. If you aren't aware of that, it's because of the geometry of the front fork has been worked out a century ago, so it comes naturally. The greatest proof is the reverse-steering bike experiments. Every time the novice reverse rider starts to fall, they steer the wrong way harder and harder. But then it clicks eventually, their brain reverses, and it works again. The gyroscopic effect resists falling, but it doesn't stay upright on its own forever.
Back to the point. I've skied, I've snowboarded. You balance by rocking and steering yourself. While ski bikes do exist for the slopes, all 3 of these take relatively wide paths to stay balanced Ina mild weave. Bikes do it in a much narrower path because they have grip in the tires. Replace that with a constant slide and it gets dicey fast. You lose the ability to balance any time the front washes out. And to see more of that concept, search "lowside crash motorcycle". The front locks/slides, all balance is lost.
Stick to cleared pathways and at least hard pack snow. Powder is awful to bike through. I've done it. No mortal bike tire floats how it'd need to
Canadians hibernate during winter and only wake up for periodic hockey and lebatt refueling, right?
I used to ride a bike all winter. Knees are getting old so I stopped. Just a matter of dressing for the conditions.
You do realize in countries across Europe with cities that are actually designed around pedestrians, people bike all the time during the winter?
Jackets exist. And it isn't nearly as bad when everything is less than a 15 minute bike ride at the worst.
So how much is this tech going to raise already stupidly high car prices.
$100-$500 according to the article. No discount for the biometric data they'll sell.
Because they were already selling it before.
Meanwhile, in Europe...
That thing is so ugly that it almost loops back around into looking cool again
With those huge ass flared arches, I cannot help but wonder how fast it'd go with a different motor and power management.
Or just with a reflash and acceptance that the 80hp motor will be dead in 15000km
Its a throwback design based on the o.g 2cv, and its friend-shaped. And 15k. Its dope.
This sort of bullshit is why I am happy to ride a bike.
Well now see, now I'm at a cross roads. On the one hand, fuck privacy violations.
On the other hand, fuck drunk drivers.
I guess in the end, my logic is that this will barely be used to detect drunk drivers, and FULLY used to track you in real time.
So lets all fuck over their technology by making nothing but right turns for 8 hours. Just a massive small circle. For 8 hours, every day.
Then it will be assumed their tracking is broken, and they'll waste time figuring out whats broken.
If we all do this, every day, in electric vehicles powered by solar chargers, then we'll save the world!
This is just "protect the children" in a different form. Could it be used to stop drunk drivers? Sure, maybe. Is that the motivation? Hell no.
Punishing drunk drivers wont solve the problem. So even if that was the case the better option would be to deal with the problem at the source. Which they already would have if they cared enough. Since they havent i think its fair to assume this is not the main objective of this.
Or… leave the tech sitting at home reporting a pre-recorded route over and over.
How are you going to leave the tech at home when the tech is the car?
i got the idea from this movie about this bus that had to speed around a city, keeping its speed over 50. and if its speed dropped, it would explode. i think it was called The Bus That Couldn't Slow Down.
I never understood with that one why they didn’t just put it up on blocks; it was reading the speedometer, not even GPS.
Guess it wouldn’t have made for as good a movie.
Or those spinny wheel dealies they have at the smog hutch
They only found out about it once the bus was in motion. It's pretty hard to get that set up on a moving bus.
There's a difference between monitoring driving and monitoring drivers. I would be less concerned about tech that identifies when I'm running stop signs, drifting into other lanes, or quickly braking without a nearby obstacle to warrant it. This sounds like it's monitoring the human driver, at all times. Given the bullshit this admin is up to I wouldn't put it passed the software or hardware makers to "calibrate" it by race so black and brown people are 3x more likely to trip the sensors.
That's the thing. You can't just conditionally spy on people only when they're doing evil acts. You're either surveiling innocent people or you're not.
guess its time to buy the 1995 ford then?
I'd recommend a 1995 Toyota, Nissan or Mitsubishi rather than a Ford 😅
I don't see any 95 Toyota's Honda's Mitsubishi or Nissan but I do see a lot of 95 Fords. I'll go with what I can find
You don't see any 95 Toyota or Hondas?
I'm actually surprised to hear you say you see 95 fords a lot. Must be the area I guess. Where I'm at it's the exact opposite.
1998 ford ignition lasted 186000 miles before I changed the spark plugs. The ceramic was cracked and the anodes were all worn, with gaps exceeding 1/4". My mileage was still factory before and after. I would expect that from the brands you listed too.
Ah true, when I think of a 95 ford I think of this
A Mazda with a Ford badge is the lord's truck (83-11 ranger)
Toyota, Nissan and Mitsubishi never made a 7.3 (although some of those Mitsubishi diesels are nice).
You can easily go up to 2010 and later without any antennas besides the radio. But also yes, the answer is dumb Ford Ranger for other reasons.
I really want a maverick (ute), but I will not do it without confirmation that it will function fine with the cell antenna unplugged.
I mean, you've still got a license plate. Cops have been tracking those for decades.
License plates don't report your average driving speed and number of hard braking stops etc... to your insurance company.
That's exactly what radar guns do
Cops don't follow you with a radar gun 24/7 like the data the car manufacturers are collecting.
They'll eventually outlaw cars without the tech. That's how it always works
Why the actual fuck would you buy a Ford. Literally the worse conceivable option.
I assume the NHTSA will pay for it? Good luck, fuckers.
The article itself says it's going to increase cost for vehicles directly to the consumer.
Yes, the consumers who can't afford anything.
See but here is the thing, you can't afford a car from 5 years ago and can't afford one now so you not being able to afford the one in the future is no different. The trend line is stable so everything is fine..... right?
So this works perfectly and has no bugs, right? There's probably going to be millions of false positives everyday and people won't be able to use their cars. Between this and AI age verification and everything else, the dumbass politicians in power seem to think all this shit is magical wizardry. Their going to cause society to collapse.
https://futurism.com/the-byte/camera-cars-detects-drinking
Should be interesting.
Unless they're telling you the Type 1 and Type 2 error rates, they're not worth a shit.
I assume the system is working properly and 25% of drivers just drive as erratically sober as the other 75% blind drunk.
And that's among the ones who managed to get to the study. The percentage would be higher if it took into account the ones who got lost or crashed on the way.
If that was true should be rolled out as that’s about the same thing. Those people shouldn’t drive / should go/back to driving school
as a disabled person who moves weird but drives fine (okay i'm a shitty driver but like, i'm an aware shitty driver) this is going to be fuuuun
So I'll have reduced millage/charge and extra weight for carrying around this surveillance technology for the government and whose sole benefit will be the government?
Will I be compensated for this burden? No?
Would I be penalized for removing it from my car on my own?
What happens if it "breaks"? Will I be expected to fork over my own money to repair/replace the government's surveilance device? Logically speaking, burdening the car's operating with a regulatory requirement like this could constitute a taking. Then again, it could be a logical extension of Congress's taxing and spending power, but it probably isn't without a strict mandate from Congress to have those devices. Maybe it goes to Congress's powers to regulate interstate commerce.
I worked on this a bit. Some of the tricks they had were changing the AC to blow colder air when drowsiness was detected, increasing the blower speed, increasing brightness on the dashboard, and turning the volume up or turning the radio on. They even had turning the radio on and selecting music to combat drowsiness. So I guess you'd get sleepy and then your car would automatically started blasting house music.
Fuck you, get a different job.
The computer has determined that you require listening to some soothing music.
There’s absolutely nothing in the specifications about contacting police or keeping black-box recordings. The only outside contact functionality was EMS contact when the vehicle had to pull over to the side of the road due to unconsciousness and detected other signs of a health emergency. Even that had loud audible warnings and a countdown timer before dialing.
If shitty governments take something that would save tens of thousands of lives globally every year and turn it into a surveillance system that’s the fault of those governments. The manufacturers entire focus has been on reducing fatalities and injuries among road users.
What much of it comes down to is trust.
Can we trust that these systems will legitimately be used to improve public safety and not as a backdoor by the government to exert greater control? The skepticism is not unfounded.
As is often the case, the EU has placed appropriate guardrails on driver monitoring systems, which the US and others would do well to follow;
It's the voters responsibility to elect governments that use such systems exclusively for public safety.
The behaviour of the government is a reflection of the voting public.
I guess whatever you need to tell yourself..
Chinese EVs it is, nonIronically safer and more trustworthy than American products
Drivers in tatters.
I'll just walk outside where there's no surveillance.
Imagine this is what encourages people to ramp up public transit construction nationwide. Along with the Strait of Hormuz blockade.
Looking forward to all the good that will come from people refusing this stuff
Where is there no surveillance outside? With all the doorbell cameras nowadays, every neighborhood is under surveillance
LMAO
You'd think more libertarian types would be more in favor of walkable cities, biking, and such.
Oops. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00BXUYDMM
I am driving my 2018 car which doesn’t even have auto stop start until it dies.
What is even auto slop start? Sounds like something I'd never want in my car ever.
It turns off the engine at stops then starts it again when you press the gas pedal.
Wouldn't you want to have manual control of it? Unless it's a hybrid, from what I was told, it wouldn't make sense to turn off the engine unless you're be staying for 30 seconds or more, which the car couldn't possibly predict.
There is a button that lets you turn it off
So... ICE will know both your location and face every time you get in your car? Yeah, I'm sure this won't result in a genocide. ^/s^
Is this just in America? Or worldwide?
Mostly the US. But if it ships to the US market from overseas, expect it there too.
Yeah, it's looking like those days are ending. Silver lining of the usa becoming a pariah state.
If you're expecting the EU to save your privacy? That's gonna be a problem, based on old news:
https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news/european-intelligence-agencies-prepare-to-surveil-car-metadata/
It isn't. This is power fully vested in federal agencies by the legislature and endorsed by the courts.
As noted up about, it's an end run around implementing any kind of public transit, by offloading the external costs of privatized vehicle operation into the consumer.
But you don't have some kind of inalienable right to a public highway free of state surveillance. That's never existed.
I'd make the argument that that would violate anything about searches seizures.
Sure. But you'd lose the case.
You don't have right to privacy in public.
And even your backwards ass legal system has said that the inside of your car is not public. You see there used to be this us thing called the 4th amendment, its all gone to piss now but that was the legal document that used to be referaced.
Point to the moment in history during which the 4th amendment existed the way the lay American thinks is does
Why would I do that? Unless you completely miss understand what my comment was infuring it would make no sense for me to do that.
Nothing in any of the small comment I made has anything to do with the perceived effectiveness of the 4th amendment, but on the actual precedent the united states of shitheal courts at all levels have set. You stating that someones vehicle is public is quite literaly 180 degrees from the legal opinion. They have stated (to much controversy) that individuals have less expectations of privacy in their own vehicle, but have even upheld the right to people renting cars.
Now will this change? Sure you all live in a joke version of a nation now. But you also seem to want to be oppressed so much you are actively fighting for it for some reason, so I guess it will happen faster.
Presumably because you have a hagiographic understanding of your nation's police and courts, and you really do believe civil rights are delivered from a benevolent judicial priesthood.
Whose legal opinion?
I can't wait to have to buy active countermeasures for this shit. /s
This is fucked. But aren't "passenger vehicles" actually quite rare? I think most (environmental and safety) regulation is on passenger vehicles, which is why auto manufacturers try and sell so many trucks and SUVs since they don't count as "passenger vehicles". I could be wrong and this mandate is going to target all consumer vehicles.
Fuck all cars and our American car brained culture. But also fuck this legislation.
Lol pre 2027 cars will sell at a premium
Bought a 2000 Honda Civic precisely because I don't want to be spied upon.
Spank my ass cause everything else already does, so it makes my effort almost completely moot.
Accused of bad reporting, what do you think?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47383298
Living in a capitalist hellscape is getting old.
Wonder if it's still functional in 2037 when I can afford one 😂
As it references the NTSA I think that this is a USA only issue.
Damn, glad i don’t own a car and will never buy one.
Nothing in the article describes an actual implementation of this technology.
Like, no make or model with it enabled. No examples of it being tested or deployed in any vehicles ahead of schedule. Just a line item from legislation noting the deadline and a mention that manufacturers are resisting it.
I guess that wouldn’t sell in today’s news climate.
I said this months ago
Kinda creepy but as someone who crashed and almost killed themselves when driving too tired... Uhm yeah maybe it helps?
Edit: I never even said I was in favor of this legislation. No need for the dogpile
I'm reminded of the article "Fatal Distraction" about children being left in a hot car. It's a thing nobody thinks can happen to them because they're a good parent. Well guess what, this happens to good parents too. It's a fantastic article, go look out up. Thinking those parents are selfish assholes and should be punished, is a defense mechanism of "this could never happen to me".
I think driving tired was the same for me. I would never drive tired if given a conscious choice, but the nature of it is that you're not thinking straight and you don't realize. It's not like I made it a habit to drive while tired, it's a thing that happened once because I didn't pay attention to it. You don't have to be that tired, it was 11pm. The consequences can be extreme. I'm overall a super careful driver, will never speed, drink, text or generally take risks while driving. But everyone gets tired
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/fatal-distraction-forgetting-a-child-in-thebackseat-of-a-car-is-a-horrifying-mistake-is-it-a-crime/2014/06/16/8ae0fe3a-f580-11e3-a3a5-42be35962a52_story.html
Sounds like a you problem. You fucked up so everyone needs constant surveillance? Fuck that authoritarian nonsense and fuck you for supporting it.
Not to be a dick but you need to be more responsible behind the wheel. Driver aids just help drivers get complacent and I don't want rolling surveillance drones everywhere :c
If I can't sleep well at night, explaining it to my boss and skipping work is not an option. I'll gladly document my occasional sleeplessness and apply for disability, but I have my doubts on whether this will be effective. If you can find me a place to live that doesn't require work or money, I am open to safer alternatives.
Fuck your entitlement. What does your lack of sleep have to do with my privacy? Get a remote job or take the bus if your too tired to drive.
It has nothing to do with your privacy. The comment I'm responding to has to do with driving while tired. In my community, not driving while tired isn't an option. I'd need to spend $70 per day to ride five miles with Uber. "Personalized pricing."
If you cant get to sleep regularly you need to asses your routine, excersizes, and diet and see a doctor if you cannot sleep with those in check <3 don't put others lives at risk plz
Bus. Uber. Lyft. Anything besides shrugging off "I don't care about others even after I hurt someone."
This better be bait, because no judge will give you the leniency of "oh well he was just asleep behind the wheel, who cares about the family he ran over?"
You want the government to spy on everyone because you have no responsibility. Congrats, you're a Republican.
Good. Don’t like it? Fuck off public roads
Yikes! I think I just burnt myself on this take.
It's not a good solution to traffic fatalities but I guess at least it's something.
*I guess the privacy of new car buyers is more important than human life. God forbid the thing that already tracks and sells your location also check if you're drunk driving.
**this story/outrage is even dumber than I thought. Not only does this regulation not exist yet, it seems to only have resurfaced because of the NHTSA reporting to congress that they need another extension because passive BAC detection isn't real yet. This yahoo story is pure clickbait fantasy ragebait. Here is a writeup actually based in reality. If you can actually read this yahoo clickbait and not get suspicious you are a credulous moron.