You don't own your vehicle anymore
9d 11h ago by feddit.org/u/RockBottom in fuckcars from videotourl.com
Crossposted from https://lemmy.zip/post/63198944
Good to see rural truck bros starting to learn what supporting authoritarians will get them.
Theyre a little too late, actually a lotta too late
but it sure isn't good to see what THEIR actions get ME!
We were due for a new car, but because of all the data garbage wasn't keen on brand new. My wife found a 2004 car in mint mechanical condition and pristine interior, so went back in time.
Maybe a company somewhere will recognize this emerging market.
For tractor's someone in Canada has figured it out.
Getting ads for vibe coding on that article is so funny
Too bad they didn't go electric, though.
There is an EV company that understood and is make a blank Slate truck. I think the initial PR said no radio or navi, just a blank dash. Because people who want nav could add it or use a phone. Drops Costa by staying simple.
https://www.slate.auto/en
Slate is backed by Bezos.
Aw crap
Wait! It might be backed by Bezos, but it looks like it's offering what many ask for: a bare non-connected EV!
From the FAQ: no infotainment, no bluetooth, no connectivity!
Some holders for BT speakers, tablets, or whatever you want to get there, bring your own infotainment.
A car that's not connected cannot spy on you!
Does it have a flux capacitor?
More reasons to own a bike, the government can't do shit!
What if car industry sponsored government doesn't allow bike lanes?
I wasn't asking for permission.
You don't need bike lanes to ride!
You need bike lanes to encourage more people to ride
Not many people are willing to take a lane
Not yet.
Not ever!
As someone who always hated to get stuck behind a bike while driving, I like bike lanes because it means the bikes never get in my way.
I'm opposed to a vehicle that maxes out at 20mph riding in a lane that's 35mph or above. For safety reasons as well as the inconvenience. I always felt nervous passing bikes on the road, and often the cyclist would look at me like I'm an asshole for it, but ain't no way I'm going all the way to where I'm going doing half the speed limit, and it's selfish for someone to think I should just because they chose to take a slower vehicle.
Bike lanes solve this problem. Bikes and cars go different speeds, and each has their own lane so they don't get in each other's ways and there are no close calls.
I don't understand why car people are opposed to bike lanes.
If I'm correct, roads were for everyone, then they decided to make it only for cars and the rest has to fight to have small strips dedicated for them because they supposedly get in the way.
And about the cyclists. They might be assholes, or you might be passing too close or too fast.
Or roads are too narrow for the guy who can't even hit half the speed limit to be safely passed and is now blocking all traffic...
Different classes of vehicle that have significantly different speed capabilities should have separate lanes. Bikes, tractors, horse-drawn buggies; it's a safety hazard to force them to share a lane with automobiles.
I try to minimize the amount of time I'm in the wrong lane of traffic. If a car comes around the next corner while I'm passing, the cyclist is gonna be a lot more upset when I have to suddenly swerve back into the right lane. So I pass as quickly as possible. If he wants me to crawl past only doing a couple mph faster than he's doing, well, that's not gonna happen.
Also, if my car doesn't accelerate very fast, I need to get up to speed in order to pass. It's not just a quick little blip when I'm starting from 15 or 20 mph. So if it makes him nervous when my engine revs, maybe he shouldn't be riding a bike in traffic?
I can go slower if I stay in the correct lane, but that gives the bike less space. I can give the bike more space by going into the other lane, but then I'll have to go faster. Pick your poison. I'd be a jerk if I passed both close and fast. But either close or fast is a practical necessity, and if you get upset that I didn't do neither then you're the jerk.
Or you could just wait until it's safe to pass.
Except... the same thing still applies when it's safe to pass.
Besides, what is "safe to pass"? It's a spectrum, and different people have different thresholds.
As a driver, my threshold might be "I can pass this cyclist without hitting him." For the cyclist, it might be "the driver can pass me without making me nervous."
Well, guess who gets to decide when it's safe to pass? (It's not the cyclist).
And when roads are long, flat, and straight, it's pretty easy to determine. You can clearly see when there's oncoming traffic anywhere close. But not all roads are like that. In many places, most aren't.
So when you have hilly, curvy roads, it can be more dangerous to pass. You have to wait until you get a long enough straightaway when you can see far enough ahead. And when that comes, there still might be oncoming traffic. So when you get a decent straightaway with no oncoming traffic, you have to take the opportunity because you don't know when the next one will come. And you can't dawdle, so if the cyclist expects you to pass slowly, they're kinda stupid.
Lastly, your argument is kinda weak as a counter to "cyclists and drivers should have separate lanes because they move at different speeds."
Lmao, wtf dude. You pass a bicycle at a place where you can't see the road ahead of you, and when a CSR comes your response is to run the bicycle over? You shouldnt have a drivers license. You are a danger to those around you.
No, you have to severely distort what I said to arrive at that conclusion. I said I don't do those things.
I depicted the various possible scenarios to explain why bike lanes are a good thing. If your solution is to just take away people's licenses because they passed a bike on the road just so you don't have to build bike lanes, then you might want to do some introspecting because you're part of the problem.
You literally said you would have to swerve into a bike if there was a car coming when you were passing at a curve bruh, there's no scenario where you should be passing at that time period. Its a dumbass argument.
The taking licenses away isn't because you passed someone, its because your idea of a valid response to you fucking up in this hypothetical scenario is to murder someone.
I said that might be a possibility if I pass too slowly while giving them too much space. I don't personally pass in scenarios where that is likely to happen.
The point of that argument wasn't to say "It's okay to swerve into the cyclist," so you acting like that's what I'm saying is a strawman. The point of the argument was to say "Cyclists shouldn't be upset and act self-righteous every time someone doesn't crawl past them completely in the other lane of traffic."
I can go slow, but I'd have to give you less space. Or I can give you more space, but I'd have to go faster. If I go both fast and close, I'd be a jerk, but it's not going to be neither. It's going to be one or the other.
The talk of swerving was an explanation of why it would be dangerous to pass slowly in the wrong lane of traffic. To portray it as anything else is extremely disingenuous.
Just to clarify. You go slower or you stay away. Your don't have to do both. The ideia is to be far enough that the bike toppling to the side doesn't result in a cyclist under your car, or that hitting the cyclist is at a relative low speed.
And I honestly see more drivers overreacting to things that would just dent or scratch their cars than cyclists losing control when they have their lives endangered.
That's what I said, one or the other but not neither or both.
Some cyclists seem to expect you to do both, but that's also unsafe, and the entire point of my argument was to illustrate why that is.
And going back to my original point, dedicated bike lanes would solve this issue entirely, so I don't know why car people are against them.
It seems you've made an art out of latching onto the wrong details, removing all context, and arguing against a distortion of the argument that I actually made...
Ask New Yorkers what it was like before they made it legal to ride in streets again.
You used to get a ticket for leaving the bike lane when say, a cop car was parked in it.
Only to ride safely.
That's the magic, I then bike off road.
They will
It cracks me up to see bike companies adding wireless electronic shit to bikes, like, shifting and turn signals. Those bikes will die while my 2008 trek hybrid keeps rolling.
The most advanced electronics on my light with 3 different modes that switch when you press the button.
Man an e bike is the shit though if you live in a hilly city, that one is def not a gimmick lol
It's a gimmick if it requires phone app or internet connection. An electric motor doesn't need to connect to a server in order to work.
In time of crisis bikes are THE best transportation mode.
Yeah, canoe or kayak are also good choices. They are basically the bikes of the sea.
Don't take a canoe or kayak out into blue water. They are really only useful in brown water.
Is there really much need to go more than a few miles from shore though?
Depends on your intended destination, I suppose.
Sea kayaks are a thing, one dude got from Germany to Australia in one in the 30s.
Huh, TIL. I wouldn't want to be on a craft that small in the ocean.
Open ocean is still a bad idea for lots of reasons, there's little room for navigation equipment or food or water or emergency supplies or a way to dry off and get warm... But they seal up pretty well so you won't sink and rolling upright is a pretty basic skill.
Nah , dirtbikes are. Fast, nimble, can go off road.
In a crisis, every bike is a dirtbike.
@Korhaka @RockBottom Keep your old bikes in good working order, they'll probably start requiring tracking devices on new ones soon.
Should be easy enough to remove for regular bikes, ebikes might be a little more annoying.
If you can't disassemble your Ebike with a few spanners and a few allen keys then you bought the wrong Ebike.
"acoustic lip reading"? Reading lips by sound waves wouldn't they just put a microphone in there?
Theres probably sone regulation against actually just recording the conversation...
But they're doing that too... for "ad monetization"
Ad selection may be local to the device.
Most states require two party consent to record audio otherwise it's wiretapping.
Acoustic ultrasonic distance mapping isn't counted as wiretapping. They aren't recording your speech, they're inferring your speech.
It’s actually the other way around. There are only 11 two-party consent states. All the rest, plus DC are single-party consent, but usually the single consenting party has to be one of the participants of the conversation.
inb4 "By buying this vehicle, you consent to use recording every interaction you have within and outside the cab."
Most states require two party consent to record audio otherwise it's wiretapping.
That was before multi-billions dollars companies found a way to monetize this. Then they'll intensively lobby pay lawmakers to amend the laws so that either cars get a waiver or starting up the car will be considered as a consent.
Wait, so regular "lip reading" is looking at someone's lips to determine what they're saying.
Add "acoustic" and it involves sound. So... sound-based lip reading? Isn't that just recording something with a microphone with the "lip reading" part being unnecessary?
Maybe they mean using laser to observe acoustics moving an object like a window?
What does that have to do with lips?
It's metonymy, maybe?
Bicycles are vehicles. I definitely own it.
Just get whatever car you want, disconnect the cell network antenna, and connect that wire through a resistor to ground. The car will forever think it's outside of cell signal range and will operate with none of the connectivity features, none of the spyware, none of the 'emergency' controls.
There's maybe still a bit of concern about your car preserving data on its internal storage that you'd rather it not preserve, but other than that, this is a simple fix that solves all the 'car is too high tech' issues. If you don't know how to do it yourself, I'm sure you can find some independent mechanics who will do it for you.
Ah congrats, not only have you voided your warranty, but your insurance company now refuses to insure your vehicle, and it cannot be legally driven.
That is where this is headed.
Where it's headed? Maybe...
But that's definitely not where it is now. A small, reversible modification like this won't void your warranty in any meaningful way (unless you then go in to make a warranty claim about your connectivity features not working). And no insurance company is going to care whether you've disconnected the internet connection antenna -- even if they wanted to ... how would they know?
The insurance companies already have dongles that "give you a discount" (read: price-gouge anyone not using them) for snooping on your driving. I'm sure they're very excited for that functionality to be built into all cars so they have an excuse to make it mandatory for providing coverage.
Insurance wants the data so they can use it jack your rates up and have even more excuses to not cover claims.
I bet they got a failsafe for that too. Like 2 weeks to a month later, you get something of a hard fail error that shuts everything down and forces you to contact the manufacturer for maintenance...
Possibly, I suppose. Nothing is stopping them from doing that. Though it would be a huge dick move, and it might end up exposing them to a lot more warranty claims than they planned on if something goes wrong with that 'car kills itself if it goes too long without cell signal' system.
Like ... suppose a perfectly normal owner leaves his car parked inside an underground parking garage or a metal shed while he goes on vacation ... and then comes back a few weeks to a month later and finds out that his car won't work at all? Now the dealership is on the hook for towing fees, half an hour of technician labor to reset the system, and maybe even the use of a loaner car for a day. That potential cost seems to really outweigh the 'benefit' of preventing any owner from purposefully disconnecting their car.
Anyway, if you somehow end up with a car like that, then you might need to be a bit more creative in the solution: instead of connecting the antenna wire directly to a resistor, you'll need to connect it with a 2-way switch. One position on the switch connects it to a grounded resistor, the other position connects it to the original antenna. Then you just have to remember to occasionally turn the car's spyware on for a few minutes every month or two, just long enough to reset its internal self-destruct timer. (Though it is possible that it might be collecting data while disconnected and then sending that collected data once the connection is reestablished. In that case, this isn't a very good solution, though it would at least prevent them from fucking with you in real time.)
Media players for cinemas have something broadly similar - if a clock in a media board drifts too far (outside about five mins) it requires a tech to hard reset it. You get two of these a year.
Outside that it permabricks $20,000 of equipment and you can go fuck yourself.
There's probably a fuse you could just pull instead that shuts down that entire system
Possibly... But it's likely that the internet modem is integrated together with the car's radio head unit, or at least pulls power through the same fuse. Since it's fairly unlikely that they have a single fuse that only powers the cell connection, the fuse-pulling approach is likely to disable other things as well, possibly some pretty important things.
Going after the antenna wire ensures that you only disable the internet connection, nothing else.
I'm doing both. I want these systems totally offline. If I could, I'd tear them the f out of the car entirely. This shit is evil.
Fwiw your second paragraph is reality. Mechanics automatically upload the stored data when they jump through the licensing and computing hoops to clear codes, update serial numbers for replacement parts, etc
I mean you don't own public transit anyway so maybe this will renew a public transit push.
Buses already have cameras, and it's only a matter of (not much) time before a genius proposes to add face id and "behavioral assessment" by AI.
Dystopian. This shit is going to be everywhere.
I'm so glad I bought a homestead and live in the middle of no where
This is every 10 year olds dream
Until you break your arm or your dog is dying and needs emergency care.
Humans shouldn't be that isolated. Some is fine. But isolation isnt how we fight fascism.
My partner broke their leg last year. I just took them to the hospital...
So to you, middle of nowhere must be an hour or less to a city with a hospital. Thats normal rural. True middle of nowhere is a 6 hour drive at 80 mph to a town of 2000 (think north east Montana)
When i think of true home steading I don't think of 1 acre 15 miles from town. Thats just an acreage, plenty of city folk have those.
I live on 15 acres, 20 minutes from a town of around 20,000 just just happens to have a hospital.
In my province, I'm in the middle of no where. I'm on a rural dirt road that sees zero traffic.
Also, shout out to "true homesteading", as if you're gatekeeping farming.
Thats mildly rural.
I'm sick of these "trad farm" folks that keep popping up thinking they're "roughing it" when they've never worked on a farm in their life.
You dont seem like one of those.
This is why I live halfway between nowhere and somewhere. Vets and hospital and poor reception so pulling the cell antenna off seems to bork onstar.
Nice, that's the best way
That's not how patents work.
You know what? Fine. Don't elaborate, I don't care anyway.
I can elaborate, I just thought it's obvious.
Companies don't patent things because they have a product and they want to sell it, because they think it may make them profit in the future or even because they thin it's a good idea in general.
Companies get patents when they find an idea novel enough to patent it. They want to have big portfolio of patents for two main reasons:
-
investors like it. They think the company is innovative and intellectual property adds value to the company. it basically looks good to have a lot of patents
-
it's ammunition in patent wars. If your competitor tries to sue you for infringing on their patents you can always find some patents in your portfolio where you can claim that they infringe them and sue them in retaliation. A lawsuit can turn in to a negotiation. The more patents you have the more protection from lawsuits
Patenting something doesn't mean company is about to turn it into a product. It just means they managed to patent something. When I worked in IBM the company was giving bonuses for successful patent applications. It was a requirement for some higher managerial positions to get some patents for the company. The process was simple: you send your idea to the lawyers, they check if the idea is patented already, if not they apply for the patent. It had nothing to do with IBMs business plans. It was purely legal evaluation.
I have a 2020 model CUV. Bit after infotainment, but before the all-digital dash bullshit.
I will be driving it until the wheels fall off, or until gas is literally no longer available.
No surprise coming from a company that was founded by a nazi and also build most cop cars.
Called it years ago. Snowden told us . we knew it would happen.
Big wins for mass transit between the pointless Iran war, and shit like this that car makers are doing.
What bus have you been on in the last ten years that doesn't have cameras on it?
So a camera in your house is cool because there's a cameras in other places? Ok...
You're hallucinating Claude.
I didn't know I was driving the bus.
I have an E-bike. I'm faster than the bus so I use light rail. They probably also have cameras, but that's neither here nor there, crowds breed anonymity.
Why does this video feel like AI? Not trying to cast doubt on the content by any means - fuck car manufactures (and iirc Mercedes is already doing something similar), but the random speeds and weird inflections make this feel like AI slop.
Pretty sure it's slightly sped up, which might be giving it an uncanny feel.
Oh that makes sense. I specifically don't watch videos sped up because I hate how it feels lol. It's hard not to be suspicious of everything I see on the internet though too.
I've been riding motorcycles for a couple decades and now that they're all fancy and computer controlled, most bike have their ECUs cracked within a couple years. Granted most of the time it's to remove Euro-5 emissions controls 🙄, or remove speed limiters. But could this be an option to disable car surveillance?
I recognize car companies will probably retaliate by saying you voided warranty, but so far most motorcycle companies don't do that.
There are those still content with gas engine performance.
I sincerely doubt this will be limited to EVs going forward.
No, they use them because of the smell and noise. Infant seeking attention.
Could we not just jailbreak these cars?
It should be possible and easy to jailbreak and set up self hosting solutions for the premium features
They'll mandate that jail broken cars can't pass inspection or something like that or if your car stops connecting to your insurance's servers then they'll cancel your coverage. Maybe even make it a crime.
You know what a jailbroken car is called?
Horse.
found a 2011 Ford Ranger with 50k miles on her and I will drive this analog truck until I die
Can we fucking give a shit about privacy now? Like seriously how many final straws do we have to see before people see this as a serious political issue? Fuck.
So, people are buying those trucks because they watched too many horror movies.
we live in a fucking dystopian nightmare, i hate it here
Even ebikes are going to shit with all their DRM, if you want a high end one
And almost all cars in the US have telecommunication infrastructure already to track what you're saying. Can someone from the US just buy a car from overseas, if they need one, that doesn't have tracking?
In Canada, we're allowing the first wave of ~50K Chinese EVs into our market this year, and all you hear is panic about whether we can trust a company beholden to the Chinese government. It's all just so hypocritical... we're fine with sharing our most intimate thoughts with western social media, smart phones and cars, but as soon as it's another country, we should be terrified. Hate none of it or hate all of it.
From western companies, that's projection at its best.
Chinese EV makers are aware of the defiance and could go easy on the data collection.
But what I really hope is to see disconnected EVs! I enjoyed advanced infotainment, but I'm growingly frustrated with the idea my car spies on me more than my phone, and even more since I switched to Graphene OS.
And it looks like what Slate is about to offer (learnt about their existence in this thread!).
I mean, what car would that be? I saw a report last year, all 25 manufacturers they looked at were doing this shit. It's not a US only problem.
Glad I don't have a car anyway :)
I guess not enough real stuff in the world to be mad at so you've gotta boost some ragebait tiktok about patent filings.
How many years ago was the 'stand up and say mcdonalds to continue viewing' patent that people freaked out over? Anyone know if that's how reality works yet? Or is a patent just a patent and there's no shortage of actual things that actually exist that you could be mad at.
Vehicle cameras are literally spying on their owners. This isn't a hypothetical or just a patent application.
I'm realizing I tuned out of the tiktok too early. It led with the more salacious and less realistic patent to complain about so I figured the rest was also bullshit.
Link to article?
there are a bunch, here's an easy one to find
https://carbuzz.com/ford-voice-lip-reading-patent/
What are you doing Dave?
This video is just based off a patent filing?
Just because a company patents something doesn't mean they have any intention of implementing it. There are generally 3 different reasons to patent something:
- Patent it because you intend to use it
- Patent it to add to your patent portfolio to sell or trade at some point
- Patent it to control it so that nobody else can do it
Number 3 is something that big companies are notorious for. An oil company might own patents on renewable technologies to block renewable tech. companies from implementing those ideas. If they do, they violate the patent and the oil company can sue. That puts roadblocks in front of the renewable tech. companies and reduces competition for the oil company.
There's a movie scene in that. Protagonist is being chased, desperately tries to start the car.
People buying vehicles that have LTE connections and then complaining about connectivity problems deserve exactly what they get.
it's getting hard to not get that. Anything that's onstar capable still calls home even if you don't pay for the service, you just don't get the benefit from it
Don't buy new cars then? Not like there's a shortage of used cars in the world. It's better to prevent waste anyway.
My car is 12 years old, but it's getting hard to find certain parts. I still need it because I don't live in a bikeable world. I've spent 5G over the past two years just on suspension/radiator. It's not the kind of card that goes 250k
Is it really though? While few new vehicles are "cell-less", countless relatively new used vehicles are not only "unplugged" but also less than 1/2 the price of the identical "new" version of that model.
it is NOT curently a buyers market for used cars. To get 1/2 the price you're getting something that's already worn out and around the age of unreliable.
What are you talking about? Yes it is hard. The companies make more money selling the data about you than the cell subscription.
I would be a bit more in agreement if they added things like automatic speed throttling based on the current road's speed limit. That would be a big advancement in safety. But I assume people will readily keep buying cars with constant surveillance, however find it unacceptable if they can't break the speed limit.
Who bought it?
🤡 <---
Is Ford the only pickup? Vote with your wallet like you're supposed to.
According to Mozilla research, popular global brands — including BMW, Ford, Toyota, Tesla, Kia, and Subaru — can collect deeply personal data such as sexual activity, immigration status, race, facial expressions, weight, health and genetic information, and where you drive.
You cannot vote with your wallet if everyone is doing it, we need privacy laws and enforcement. The situation is insane.
A company is collecting movement data of millions of people? Raid their fucking headquarters and make them delete it.
ill drive a 2000's car until i fucking die.
unnecessary divisiveness.
no one is better than another for buying X over Y because X buyers are stupid for purchasing from X because Y is clearly superior.
all companies are trying to fuck us over. sooner or later they all go as scummy as possible and they won't care. voting with your wallet at that point will be impossible or a race to the bottom. stand with your fellow common man and say "this sucks, let's target the bigger picture together and make sure this can't happen anymore."
By 2027 it's going to be all cars. There was a federal law enacted in 2021, look it up. Then start calling your congressman and senators.
I'm the rube.
I've been privileged to have enough money that I didn't need to repair my stuff when it breaks. I'll just buy a new one. I'm generally talking big devices like house appliances and cars and I will still repair them: I.e replacing a gasket on my clothes washing machine, general maintenance on cars like oil, belts, etc. I'm not a monster.
But when the maintenance cost became similar to just replacing the device outright, I'd just buy a new device. Hey, upgrades are fun.
Until a few years ago.
Modern devices are just absolute shit: They spy on you, requiring internet access for a fucking dishwasher to function; Your car might now have a remote disable feature, or cameras that tattle if you drive while looking tired; They are made of the cheapest materials and designed to fail to force you to get the newer model.
I know this was a thing a while ago, but I've become more aware of it recently, and I'm worried that I might have some of the last pieces of non-smart spy-tech that I can easily get.
In 2010, I wanted a 2015 car with bluetooth, keyless entry and lane assist kinds of features.
In 2026, I want a 2015-era thing, if not one from before then.
My father has a fridge in his garage that has been mostly used for storing left-overs for ages. That fridge was the one I scribbled on with a marker when I was a tiny kiddo. I'm in my 40s. How long has your fridge existed?
I'm now spending more time learning how to maintain my stuff so that my non-internet-connected fridge lasts me until after the apocalypse.
Just because they have parents doesn’t mean it’s happening
How often are americans really in such an emergency? Like, I keep seeing this whole "what are you gonna do when someone invades your home" thing from the gun nuts, and apparently now from the car nuts too.
No one is going to invade your home to murder you. If someone breaks in, they just want your tv!
By watching these lunatics it would seem everyone is constantly getting assaulted by people dead set on murdering them. Seriously; no one gives a shit about you! You're not that fucking important Rambo. They just want to sell your tv for $30 at a pawn shop.
Accidents happen in the woods all the time. Could take hours for an ambulance to arrive. You wouldn't want to wait
you have to remember that a lot of people live 30 minutes or more from any emergency response. if I cut my finger off, I'd want to be driven to the hospital asap, not wait for an ambulance that's not really all that necessary because it's not a life-threatening condition
I agree that tons of people live 30 minutes or more from an emergency department. I live 25 minutes away myself. But Emergency response, at least everywhere ive lived in the US, is much quicker than that thanks to volunteer fire departments and such. So, an emt getting to you is faster than 30 minutes -- by a lot, probably -- but you still will need to travel the 30-minute distance for super duper emergencies. Also -- who the fuck in American is ready, willing, or able to pay for an ambulance ride? My heart better be stopped if youre loading me into an ambulance.
Did you only watch the first 4 seconds and not the deep dive for the rest of the video?
Let's also consider: a woman trying to escape an abuser or a rapist... You shouldn't need your car/Ford's permission to do what's best for your own safety and security
Lots of down votes yet no one able to answer. I didn't expect Lemmings here specifically to be Fox News level nutjobs.
The issue is less about how often does that happen but more if you care about your car collecting heart beat rates, eyes, etc. and sending that back home.
Erm, yes i do, otherwise I'd not have bought it. wtf? Fucking clickbait shite.
Dumbfuck consumers deserve cars that block them from driving though (idgaf the reason), so I'd be all in favour if I thought it was a likely feature.
But since you're a dumbfuck this would affect you as well don't you see that
No they're a temporarily embarrassed King Dumbfuck. They'd never fall for something like that.
I'm a dumbfuck without a car though, so I really struggle to see how it affects me.
If news doesn't pertain to you specifically, it isn't worth reading?
"This just in: new legislation extends Homeland Security's Automotive Anti-Terrorism features to all bike and micro mobility vehicles. Starting next year, all bikes must comply with GPS tracking, enforced automatically by Flock traffic monitoring"
Are you really this fucking stupid?
Yes, are you?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/federal-surveillance-tech-becomes-mandatory-161321992.html
Likely? How about mandatory?