[mrtksn]

There are no camera requirements and if cameras are used they are prohibited from using them for the stuff the article implies because the privacy is protected by GDPR. Remember how US corporations really hate EU regulations? Yes that's the regulation preventing them from processing your face even if the system is implemented with a camera.

[tjwebbnorfolk]

GDPR doesn't protect privacy of data, it regulates how any collected data is stored and used and requires consent of the person.

As a US-based developer, all it does is make it more irritating to build anything that europeans might use because I have to gather consent 100 times. Nothing else changes about the system, you just decide whether to use it or not -- which, by the way, is already a feature of all software right out of the box. So GDPR achieves nothing except annoying all developers and users everywhere.

Now they can simply write consent into the purchase agreement for a new vehicle. No consent = no purchase. It's really simple.

[mrtksn]

If you really want to believe that if a light shines on a CCD chip the only way forward is to record that and send that to corporations and the governments that keep believing it. We are in an age of extremism, everything must be extreme and detached from reality.

[ang_cire]

You either didn't read my comment, or aren't groking it.

Whether there are cameras mandated now is irrelevant. The framework that accepts government-mandated ADDW is now in place. Most makers are fulfilling it by using cameras, whether required to or not.

Future enhancements to how ADDW is enforced (such as mandatory cameras), is now a much smaller hurdle for them to overcome.

Also, as the other commenter pointed out, you don't understand GDPR (or at least, how it affects US companies).