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.

I meant the banking industry over leveraging themselves into extinction and then walking it off because if subsidies and bailouts

** The banking industry, hiding in the corner looking sheepish **

Sure, didn't say they would, capitalist companies gonna capitalise.

In the same way capitalist governments are gonna capitalise....by serving the interests of capitalist companies.

Hit me up when these magical regulations of yours get applied and enforced for a value more than the profits produced by ignoring them.

I mean it, I'm all for the regulations, I just don't think it should be the only basket in which to place eggs, but you do you.

Meanwhile , i'll also be not spending money on products that don't serve my interests, it's not the definition of "being fleeced" that I'd use but you seem confident enough that I'll look it up and check.

And by all means, you can buy your PlayStation's (not the disc ones obviously, that would be stupid, unless the regulations for that are also imminent?) , ready for the day when those regulations come in to force (in the near future, I assume).

Because NOT buying user-hostile products is for chumps who don't believe their government has their best interests at heart... or something?

Even if it is an answer, is your suggestion to wait for a theoretical solution that hasn't appeared so far and doesn't seem to be on the horizon, to the exclusion of doing anything else?

Idealism isn't strengthening your argument.

How about doing multiple things, you know, just in case, on the very small (^minuscule,^ ^really^) off-chance you happen to be incorrect or even not fully correct ?^[As unlikely as that scenario is , i mean]

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 tax fine 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.

Thats not the addw section (at least in the version im reading) but otherwise you are correct

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.

I maintain my stance that this is one of those "small steps" towards something much worse and that manufacturers will absolutely find a way around this to monetise it somehow (even in it's current form)

But I suppose we'll see.

See the other comment about the kernel, but that aside you could go down the https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/ route

You know he didn’t have to resign right? He literally only did it for honor.

Ah, i see the confusion now, you're talking about the "honour killings" kind of honour, the excessive toxic pride kind, like "leaving before you're kicked out to try and save face".

"I don't think i can win so i won't compete", isn't honour, it's pragmatism.

I'm not even throwing shade for it, it's a good call.

I was thinking of the idealised honour where you do the subjectively right thing, for the subjectively right reasons.

The uk political system is driven by honor.

Its driven by money/power/control, same as any modern political system.

They even pressured Boris Johnson to resign. Could you imagine a US president resigning before their term was done?

See the "leaving before you're kicked out" section from above.

The UK hasn’t had a single prime minister fill out their full term since 2015

I'm not sure how this is relevant but it is factual.

does he ? when did this happen ?

In principle that application of a face camera holds up, subjectively.

In practice that won't be it's primary use case.

It absolutely will bes sold, even if they are banned from saving face profiles directly (which ostensibly they are, for now) it'll just be "anonymous'" data collection. Until they get caught, then they'll pay a cost of doing business tax (fine) and continue on their way.

It's just another vector for creeping changes that invade privacy for the benefit of corporations out the continued tightening population control of governments.

In this case, think ring doorbells + GPS as an opening gambit.

Like how courts orders for "all of the phones in a particular area at a particular time" are a thing, but with a mandatory face cam.

edit : because these are the type of activities that go on at these companies, unchecked mostly.

edit edit : God dammit ford

Im not defending privacy overton pushing shenanigans, they are all bullshit.

But that face camera thing is about to become an EU mandate.

All the companies are gearing up for data suction (EU or otherwise), if they don't already have a robust system in place.

China is bad for it, yes, but so is everyone else.

It's all bullshit from all sides

edit: I have since been updated on the actual wording of the mandate and it doesn't specify face cameras specifically, just some mechanism for dealing with drowsy/distracted drivers.

I expect most companies to do this with camera's but it's not a specific camera mandate.