Rip out your modem. Cars should NEVER have a modem. Ever.
It's always for your safety
Submitted 1 day ago by ThunderComplex@lemmy.today to [deleted]
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/e4af7d23-dfd5-4f25-a15f-82f2cbd37dd4.png
Comments
redsand@infosec.pub 12 hours ago
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 12 hours ago
The camera processes everything internally. There some build in machine learning model. It should not communicate or send anything images outside.
Of course the problem is that it’s all closed source so you can’t verify that. Cars also call 112 now automatically in case of an accident so I suspect that ripping out your modem may cause some warning lights on your dashboard which can mean you will not pass your mandatory technical revision.
So if you rip out your modem the camera will still work but you may have other issues.
Maggoty@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
In the US it’s absolutely sending that data out.
Axolotl_cpp@feddit.it 11 hours ago
if i make an incident, someone will either call the 112 for me or i will do it, unless you are in the fucking land of no one
redsand@infosec.pub 12 hours ago
Keep it for testing. I don’t want my car to be able to call anyone. Ever. For any reason. Notice the @infosec.pub . Trust me it’s wildly irresponsible engineering
dismay3915@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
I think they’ve thought of that
tino@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I hate this
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
My favorite part of all this is that motorbikes are excluded. Car now have mandatory automated breaking and some other features like adaptive cruise control (not sure). Motorbikes have none. Why? Because bikers and bike manufacturers are pushing back saying that it will make bikes more expensive and (paraphrasing) it will ruin the fun. And so far EU is buying this. 25% of deadly accidents are bikers and most of those accidents happen during fun rides on the weekend but those accidents are fine apparently. Nothing they can do about it.
So easiest way to avoid it? Buy a motorbike. You will immediately gain protected status.
Krzd@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Motorcyclists are so much more likely to hurt/kill themselves in an accident, compared to car drivers who are much more likely to injure/kill someone else while only sustaining minor injuries.
I consider it a rather strong incentive to ride safely.
Furthermore, riding a bike is a much more involved activity compared to driving, which makes distracted driving a lot less likely.PotatoesFall@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
I feel like automatic breaking on a bike would be dangerous since there is balance involved?
JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 21 hours ago
Yeah agreed. Go ride a bike and tell your friend to pull out the chain as you pass em and see how badly you want auto breaking on a bike lmfao. You’ll end up with bikers thrown over their bars or whipped off the side of their bike much much more often if they aren’t in control of it
esperal@pawb.social 10 hours ago
Maybe you’re right, but I also think the difference is due to how the EU is trying to justify this : they say it will help lower phone use while driving. It’s very hard to use the same rhetoric against motorcycles, because you actually always need both hands to drive, making phone use far more hard and risky than with a car.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 10 hours ago
Detecting phone use is just a tiny part of it. ADDW is about detecting distraction and drowsiness in general but they are also mandating speeding alerts. The car is supposed to monitor the speed limit and alert the driver when he’s driver above it. As you can imagine those systems work like shit and beep at you constantly, even when you drive below the speed limit. You also have mandatory lane assist and automated breaking. Nothing is required for bikes. So basically big chunk of fatal accidents are caused by people speeding for fun on country roads, lane splitting and doing other completely unnecessary things and EU is just accepting that.
MrSelfDestruct@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Would it be illegal to cover the camera with electrical tape?
KyuubiNoKitsune@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
It stops the car.
I’m thinking of a lensed device with an LCD screen behind it, something small you can put in front of the camera.
It would need a special LCD screen, but I think my privacy is worth it.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
It does not stop the car, don’t be silly. It will be reported as a malfunction on the dashboard.
DmMacniel@feddit.org 1 day ago
Look at the Street!
Artemis_Mystique@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
shh… be a bit more vague before the “L’s bad” crowd shows up
hanke@feddit.nu 1 day ago
Source on this?
I heard this through the grapevine, but haven’t seen a real article about it yet.
mumblerfish@lemmy.world 1 day ago
This …europa.eu/…/safer-cars-safer-roads-new-rules-tak… does not explicitly mention “camera”, like most news articles does, but I guess the points
Advanced driver distraction warning system to keep drivers focused
and
Better forward vision
are a bit hard to implement without camera + computer vision.
Flauschige_Lemmata@lemmy.world 1 day ago
But there is no requirement to send that data anywhere
DeepDown@leminal.space 1 day ago
I can’t give you a source but the whole point of The Internet of Things and every product that it includes is to give data on you to someone. It’s kind of safe to assume that if one of your devices can connect to WiFi and you live in a location with representatives who are too old to even vaguely understand why that should be regulated, then you are being reported on. It’s just kind of the whole purpose of the tech in the first place. At least until the device in question has a screen, then the purpose will be to also show you an ad.
Tudsamfa@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Image