this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
444 points (99.8% liked)

Privacy

48909 readers
741 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hello people, my family recently bought a Renault 5 e-tech. The car itself is great, but there are some aspects that creep me out, especially the driver-facing camera. We didn't actually know that such a camera existed before we bought the car, it was only mentioned as the car was given to us.

The cameras official purpose is to see, if you are tired and paying attention to the road, by some "AI magic", I suppose. You can also let it scan your face, so that you automatically get logged into your profile.

I personally think, that that is kinda creepy, especially as there is no visual indication if the camera is currently recording and no official way to disable the camera hardware-wise. When it is being coverd, the car immediately complains about it.

When talking to friends or family about it, I got one of two reactions: equal concern, or "nice feature actually", "what about the camera on your laptop?", "you are way too paranoid", "I have noting to hide; it is only me driving being recorded".

I have also seen such cameras in other cars, BYD for example.

What do you think, is this creepy or am I too paranoid? Does anyone know where the actual data is processed, on device or on some cloud server? Do you have any experience with such cameras? I couldn't really find any information about it on the internet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] utopiah@lemmy.ml 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (5 children)

I don't know the purpose of this camera but sadly I have seen numerous driver battling against falling asleep, including on highways, so going faster than 100km/h on a 1ton machine.

You all might be excellent conscientious drivers who are horrified that the car might check on your ability to drive but I can tell you with 100% certainty that not all drivers, including otherwise very kind and caring people, are not always able to drive, yet still do so.

To be clear I am not advocating for any data to leave the car at any point. I'm only point that some usages of cameras pointing to the driver might be both beneficial to everybody and not be a privacy problem. How? Well detect the presence of eyes and if there is not, demand a conscious action (e.g. pressing a button) and if this does not work, increase stimulus, etc. This does NOT require any data from being sent to anybody.

Unrelated but I'm also for speed limiters for cars. I also do not think it's a privacy issue.

Still, to clarify, safety MUST be improved WITHOUT hindering on privacy of anybody involved.

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

except this sports thing is already in use in amazon trucks to judge a driver at all times by an outside entity judgements made without context. why would you own something that can only make your case harder? you can’t not give it over as evidence if you have it. so it’s best not to have it.

there is an accident because the car ahead of you slammed their breaks on the open freeway, causing a crash, in court they point that you were at the moment before the crash were checking your rear view mirror and not the road based on the eye tracking, and argue if you were looking forward you would have avoided the accident.

or you could tape up the camera

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I do not support creepy driver facing cameras at all (my car has one, I cover it 100% of the time), but in the case of rear ending someone, it's pretty much always your fault regardless of what happened. Maybe not the best example 😅

[–] WraithGear@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

operating a vehicle runs on the assumption that the cars around you are operated in the realm of sanity. with acceptable human reaction the trained standard is a car distance of 3 seconds back. but that assumption is unblinking focus, which is not true in many cases. if you are preparing for a lane shift your attention is demanded by law elsewhere. break checking, or slamming unnecessarily on the break, does not defer guilt to the victim. the problem is that it’s hard to prove, unless you have a front facing camera which is a defensive measure. there is no defensive measure for an inward facing camera

[–] NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

I'm afraid you're mistaken here.

Outside of brake* checking or other reckless behavior by the lead driver, rear ending someone because you were looking away to check mirrors is generally strong evidence that you failed to maintain a safe following distance given the circumstances. A driver facing camera would support that conclusion rather than absolve you of responsibility.

In the case of someone driving erratically and causing a front end collision, your typical front-facing dashcam would be all you need to prove your innocence.

load more comments (3 replies)