EU’s Driver-Monitoring Camera Mandate Raises Red Flags on Surveillance Creep
The latest EU bureaucratic requirement raises serious questions about who ultimately controls the information gathered inside your own car.
The European Union has officially crossed another privacy-related red line in the name of “safety,” mandating that all new vehicles come equipped with inward-facing cameras to monitor drivers.
Beginning July 7th, every new car registered in the region must include a camera facing the driver’s face, as part of the final phase of the EU’s General Safety Regulation.
The system, called Advanced Driver Distraction Warning, tracks a driver’s gaze, head position, and eye movement to detect when attention has drifted from the road, triggering an alert after 3.5 seconds of distraction at highway speeds or 6 seconds at lower speeds.
The rule has been in place since 2019 and phased in gradually, mandatory for new vehicle types since July 2024, and now mandatory for every newly registered vehicle on the road.
While regulators insist the technology will reduce accidents, they have offered little clarity on how the collected data will be stored, used, or protected from misuse. In an era when digital surveillance already outpaces oversight, this latest requirement raises serious questions about privacy, accountability, and who ultimately controls the information collected in your own car.
The system is explicitly barred from identifying who is driving. Under the EU’s own technical requirements, ADDW systems “must function without the use of biometric information, including facial recognition, of any vehicle occupants,” meaning the camera tracks head and eye geometry to gauge attention, not identity.
The bureaucrats assert that this system will not act as a facial recognition mechanism. However, the data obtained from this system may not be all that secure.
For one, the EU regulation does not impose any independent audit to ensure that the ADDW systems installed actually operate on a closed-loop basis. Meaning both the car manufacturers and the tech companies selling them these systems could theoretically circumvent the rules and stealthily collect data on drivers.
Secondly, the EU offers little clarity over how the data is handled. We don’t know how much footage the system captures once a “distraction” decision has been made, nor how long that data is stored or when it gets deleted, if it ever does.
The implications are obvious. The continuous surveillance of the inside of a car can net car companies (or any third party that’s capable of hacking into it) a treasure trove of data that’s too valuable to pass on. Put simply, driver behavior can be turned into precious consumer data to be used internally or sold to the highest bidder.
And this is not just a hypothetical, but something that already happened. In 2024, GM, Honda, Acura, Kia, Hyundai, and Mitsubishi were all caught sharing driver behavior data—including mileage, speed, hard braking, and rapid acceleration—with multiple data brokers. These turned the data into “risk scores” and sold them to insurance companies, which then freely used them to increase their personalized rates by over 20%.
Furthermore, the continuous warnings themselves prove to be problematic:
Above 50 km/h, glance away for more than 3.5 seconds and the system triggers visual, acoustic, or haptic warnings — beeps, dashboard lights, seat vibrations. Below 50 km/h, you get a generous 6 seconds. Warnings escalate if ignored. The system activates around 20 km/h and cannot be permanently disabled; it resets every ignition cycle.
One renter described getting distraction warnings every 10 minutes in a Ford Puma — the alerts themselves becoming the hazard.
Belgian automotive platform Gocar.be tested an Xpeng P7+ and found the system flagging a driver for glancing at scenery on an empty highway. The technology meant to keep your eyes on the road apparently wants them bolted there.
However, there are opportunities for the inventive and entrepreneurial!
“Good news! A new market just opened for aftermarket removals of driver cameras,” wrote another Reddit user, debating that the regulation may encourage drivers to remove the camera and reinstall it before a car checkup, thus avoiding being monitored.
While regulators insist the technology will reduce accidents, they have offered little clarity on how the collected data will be stored, used, or protected from misuse.
In an era when digital surveillance already outpaces oversight, this latest requirement raises serious questions about privacy, accountability, and who ultimately controls the information collected in your own car.
Featured image by Grok.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I can see the following scenario:
A car with a driver-monitoring camera is car jacked and the owner of the vehicle is killed in the event. Authorities want to use data captured from the camera to help them identify and/or convict the killer. This will be permitted. (Whether or not the effort is successful is inconsequential.) Now the foot is in the door to “improve” the camera’s ability to help authorities recognize/identify the drivers of these vehicles, because it makes everyone safer and all that.
Rinse and repeat.
I think they already use cell phones for this.
What will happen is you will get distracted and the video police will report you to the proper authorities. Then you will lose your license for however long the self appointed rulers deem necessary
Do not buy European cars. Or for that matter, European anything.
Subotai Bahadur
I would add, don’t even visit Europe.
It other Muslim countries either.
It seems unlikely we will be able to avoid the totalitarian surveillance state.
Folks are cutting down Flock cameras, and there are all manner of YouTube videos showing how to remove or disconnect OEM vehicle trackers.
I would like to think that we Americans still have the necessary fight in us to push back good and hard. We did it with seatbelt interlocks in 1974; we can do it now.
Always stay one step ahead of the state.
I don’t have a huge issue with Flock cameras, they take images of activities in public view and there’s no expectation of privacy in public.
IMO, the better argument/fight to be had is over individual privacy. Easy example is open fields doctrine. Sold as more/less an extension of ‘in plain view’ yet we don’t hold LEO to ‘plain view’ using plain old Mark 1 eyeball. Today they use drones, thermal imaging, telescopic lens to assist the ‘plain view’ in addition to entry upon the ‘open field’. That’s bs.
Same individual data. We need to establish that all data belongs to the individual and use of a product, system or otherwise doesn’t transfer the rights to anyone else. IOW no collection, no scraping, no holding and no selling/transfer of data.
The EU just used the ‘protect the kids’ argument to expand push for.digital ID. We gotta reject that. The easy way is to require settings on electronic devices to mirror movie ratings for content. Adults can view whatever they want on their device if they change the setting to ‘R’. Teens can view PG-13, young children ‘G’. Then require all content to have a rating. Now we’ve eliminated the ‘for the kids’ argument, made it easy to filter content you don’t want and most important eliminated a nose under the tent tactic to get digital ID implemented. Once we allow it, accept it for any purpose were gonna get shoved down our throat and ‘social credit score’ won’t be far behind.
I am not cool with warrantless, blanket surveillance. That is a blatant violation of the 4th A.
If you wanna plant your flag on an imagined right to privacy in public as your hill to die on you’ve already lost b/c that fight was decided long ago. Its a waste of time IMO to worry about being filmed in public areas. Your property is another matter entirely, as are your phone/Internet search history, e-mail, Bank/financial records, The govt should only be able to get those from the individual person with a warrant.
We don’t have to like it but IMO we’d be far better served to go after more achievable goals like:
1. Paring ‘open fields’ doctrine back to use of unassisted eyeball in normal course v using aid of thermals/telescopic lens and positioning
2. Expand curtilage back to full extent of meaning; within interior fencing around homestead/business and make it subject to full 4A protection including stripping LEO ‘inferred/implicit’ entry
3. Renew no trespassing signage/markers to ordinary meaning; no entry without permission for anyone including LEO. Period
4. Secure user data and prohibit gov’t from collecting/purchasing data from any third party like a telecom/internet provider without an specific warrant and a copy to the subject of the warrant within 15 days
5. Require ALL warrant requests to include any exculpatory evidence and require an adversarial procedure with the DA to argue for it and public defender to argue against it. The ‘magistrate’ can still issue it but they’ll be a court record and if the LEO was not truthful in disclosure they get hemmed up for perjury.
I said nothing about expectation of privacy in a public place. You inserted that notion there.
There is a world of difference between “expectation of privacy” and being under surveillance, whether by governmental or pseudo-governmental authorities every damn time I step out my door and utilize public spaces. I was born in a free society, and growing up we were told that state surveillance was how they lived in Soviet Russia, or it was the stuff of dystopian fiction.
Why do you think they’re pushing for all the “data centers”? It sure ain’t for “AI.”
I have been told it is a good way to recycle old tires.
My eyes are up here.
some have surprising discipline in this respect. others, well, get districted by the scenery, which is sometimes understandable.
Me, for one. I have good peripheral vision.
And this stupid crap will increase the cost of cars by thousands of dollars each.
So even if it did exactly what they claimed and no more, it wouldn’t be worth it.
Given the latest failure rates, they should be investing in reliability, not reporting.
The UK doesn’t need cars to “protect” people from themselves. It needs something to protect them from their Labour Party and invading primitives.
Old cars are getting more expensive everyday
Hold onto yours
Old is gold. Obama gutted the market with “Cash for clunkers.”
I suspect that was the true motivation of that stupid program.
Should have been the Soetoro’s fund raising slogan.
One car is almost twenty years old, the other almost fifteen. We can keep them on the road reliably for a lot less than new car payments.
.
Eager for such totalitarian state invasion of privacy at home? Just vote democrat and the European police state of your dreams can become a reality. Among other things. Bad horrible things. Really bad horrible things. Actually, on second thought, don’t vote democrat. You’ll thank me later.
Any semblance to the movie “Brazil” is coming to an address near you.
What happens if the Euro driver wears a mask etc over their face, or sunglasses? Will the car scream itself silly because it can’t identify the driver and where he/she/it is looking?
If it requires the removal of a hijab, prepare for more riots.
And the resulting “religious” exemption for moslems in Britainistan.
Inward facing camera’s have been in semi’s for years. I think it’s about time that people finally get a taste of what semi drivers have been forced into and see how they like it. Speed limiters, gps locators, kill switches, cameras. How about we also have a national limit on the amount of hours someone can drive a day and week forcing people to take 10 or 12 hours off each day before allowing them to drive again. I know, we can force people to stop for 30 min each day for a break. We could also do it all electronically so they can be pulled off the road at random or stopped in parking lots and checked to make sure they are not over their limit and if they are shut them down and fine them. We could also just have random equipment checks at the same time.
Seems pretty frustrating. On the other hand trucking is a regulated industry with additional safety standards imposed on drivers of much larger, much heavier vehicles beyond those applied to privately owned passenger vehicles. It’s one thing to apply that to a CDL driver who gets paid to drive and another to apply it to someone going to buy groceries.
Wait, so there is potentially video footage of the illegals handed out CDLs?
Piled on top at the last democrat flag burning party.
When I drive I’m constantly scanning the road and the environment (situational awareness… you never know when a kid or a deer is going to pop out of nowhere). I’d probably trigger all kinds of alerts even though what I’m doing is good practice.
And wait until you experience the “alerts”! As a recent renter, driving as I always do, I experienced an incredibly bright red strobe-flashing dashboard, a smoke-alarm screech and having the steering wheel jiggled incredibly hard. My first thought was something hit the car and caused a major accident and my foot went hard on the brakes. Now I created a dangerous condition for the car behind me because it apparently took 3 seconds to look at the road sign.
You can’t turn it off. How this will “help” is unknown to me.
deer is going to pop out of nowhere
The government should monitor the deer randomly crossing the road, instead of observing approved deer crossings.
Shouldn’t it be “EU creeps mandate driver monitoring cameras; surveillance raises red flags?” 😉
Wait until they mandate Soylent Green….
And some still wonder how Brexit passed…
Nice of them to make the EU’s “gestapo” lives easier.
Euro cars are already annoying. They beep at you when you are 2 kph over the speed limit (and often are out of synch with what is actually posted). They beep and vibrate the steering wheel every 20 minutes to advise a rest break.
Forcing drivers to be fixated on the road seems to be a good way to induce a catatonic state.
Sorry, but I am in favor of the Flock type systems. The argument that they are being used in an unauthorized way and should therefore be banned is the same argument that is being used to get rid of our guns. We don’t even chase the bad guys any more because someone might get hurt. WTF has happened to our country?
Bad argument.
Civilian rights should be default exercisable unless specifically prohibited. Government powers should be default prohibited unless specifically delegated.
Our right to privacy is specifically protected, meaning government is specifically prohibited.
Flock does not just record license plate. They can and do sniff your cell number and data as you pass.
You do realize that Flock is a private company, not a government entity?
Furthermore, they make their money by selling YOUR data – you cannot opt out of this, nor can you control who buys your data nor how many entities can buy your data.
YOU are the product they are selling, and YOU have NO rights in those transactions.
How will it not spy on private conversations? Yell at your kids in the back seat to be quiet. When you get home CPS is waiting.
I see a 1981 Volvo 240D 4 speed wagon in my future.
“The system is explicitly barred from identifying who is driving.”
🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣🤡🤣🤡‼️
Leave a Comment