A woman recently took to social media after discovering that her Audi rental car’s dashboard contained a camera recording her every move. It also gave verbal reminders…
A woman recently took to social media after discovering that her Audi rental car’s dashboard contained a camera recording her every move. It also gave verbal reminders…
Calling it an Audi rental when it seems Audi was barely involved is a stretch.
Also, this may be a safe, secure, and appropriate use. Unless the footage is stored there (for a duration that is not short) there isn’t a big privacy issue as compared to the benefit in the health and safety and property of others.
So, now we’re measuring invasion of privacy based on “the health and safety and property of others”?
I strongly disagree with your assertion that “there isn’t a big privacy issue” here. From the top of my head:
I know you jest, but I can’t think of a single violation of privacy that hasn’t been excused by using this metric! It’s always about saving the children and preventing the crimes.
The article does not provide that data, as far as I could tell at a scroll. They really tried to get up there in the word count so who knows.
Archiving and saving that data seems like a nightmare with little gain. I am going to save my rage for when it is warranted.
In the EU sold cars must have parts of this feature in order to be sold legally. This feels like ragebait.