Carmakers cause unease with increased driver monitoring

Lawmakers are increasingly expressing concern about the extensive driver data that auto manufacturers are gathering through their vehicles.

Tesla, for instance, has successfully obtained a patent for a device capable of identifying the facial characteristics of individuals inside a vehicle through the utilization of sophisticated facial recognition. Upon detecting the driver’s characteristics, the camera mounted within the car’s interior will cordially address the driver by their name and proceed to modify the car’s settings according to a user profile saved within the vehicle’s system.

The automobile will not only recognize face features, but it will also identify the “spatial locations” of each occupant. This will enable the car to personalize settings, such as altering the air conditioning and audio focus for the driver and passengers accordingly. The patent states that body movements, body forms, and user behavior will be recorded and kept “for further analysis.”

The vehicle’s system will retain all biometric data, including photos and video of face features, along with other metrics. These measurements will be utilized to assess the state of the driver.

The car will continuously observe the driver’s typical behavior, eye and body movements, seating posture, tone of voice, and “health parameters.” If there is a deviation in these patterns, such as a shift in tone of voice, the vehicle will prompt the driver to inquire if they require any help. If the driver fails to respond within a specified timeframe, the vehicle will automatically transmit an emergency signal to a nearby hospital and initiate a request for emergency assistance. In certain instances, the vehicle has the capability to autonomously go to the closest healthcare facility.

A comparable protocol will be implemented in the event of a collision.

If the automobile detects the driver closing their eyes or nodding their head, it has the capability to send a strong signal to notify the driver, direct cold air towards the driver’s face, and/or cease driving.

Based on a survey conducted in September by the charity Mozilla Foundation, it was found that 84% of automobile manufacturers share or sell the data they gather from car owners. Certain types of data that may be gathered include, for example, details regarding a driver’s sexual behavior, as seen in the case of Nissan, or “information about your race or ethnicity, religious or philosophical beliefs, sexual orientation, sex life and political opinions” and “trade union membership,” as in the case of Kia. Six vehicle makers have acknowledged that they gather “genetic information” from drivers.

Approximately 56% of automobile brands state in their privacy rules that they have the option to share personal driver data with law police upon “request” without the need for a warrant.

Ford filed a patent earlier this year for a technology called “self-repossessing technology.” This innovation aims to connect the car with the driver’s lending institution, enabling the vehicle to autonomously repossess itself in the event that the driver fails to make car payments. The patent includes a range of potential consequences for drivers who fail to make payments, such as limiting access to air conditioning or restricting the driver’s trip to specific destinations such as school or employment. Additional scenarios involve drivers being unable to access their vehicles or the car emitting unpleasant sounds until the subsequent payment is completed. The vehicle has the potential to autonomously transport itself to a designated impound facility or scrapyard.

Meanwhile, Ford’s systems will continuously analyze the driver’s emotions in order to identify the most effective form of punishment.

The data collecting and sharing has sparked queries from legislators who express concerns regarding potential privacy infringement.

“Cars should not — and cannot — become yet another venue where privacy takes a backseat,” wrote Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) in a recent letter to automakers. “As more and more cars become computers on wheels, automakers must implement strong privacy policies to protect users.”

However, it seems that other legislators are not displaying the same level of worry.

Congressional lawmakers recently rejected an amendment proposed by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) that aimed to challenge a driver monitoring regulation. This mandate will necessitate automakers to incorporate “kill switches” in automobiles that are sold after 2026.

The mandate was enacted in 2021 through the passage of the Biden administration’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Contained within the extensive 1,039-page bill is a provision that mandates the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to formulate regulations pertaining to driver monitoring technology. Vehicles have the capability to detect if a driver is intoxicated or inebriated, and in such situations, the vehicle will be prevented from functioning.

“To ensure the prevention of alcohol-impaired driving fatalities, advanced drunk and impaired driving prevention technology must be standard equipment in all new passenger motor vehicles,” reads Section 24220.

The bill uses drunk driving statistics to support the law, but it also highlights other instances where the requirement would be applicable to impaired drivers. The phrase lacks a clear definition.

The bill not only mandates the monitoring of a driver’s blood alcohol concentration, but requires cars to “passively monitor the performance of a driver of a motor vehicle to accurately identify whether that driver may be impaired; and prevent or limit motor vehicle operation if an impairment is detected.”

The regulation also fails to offer any insights into the operational mechanics of the device. The determination on this matter will be made by the NHTSA within the coming year, after which automakers will be given a two-year timeframe to incorporate these technologies into all newly manufactured vehicles.

“It’s so incredible that I have to offer this amendment,” Rep. Massie said on the House floor. “It almost sounds like the domain of science fiction, dystopian science fiction, that the federal government would put a kill switch in vehicles that would be the judge, the jury, and the executioner on such a fundamental right as the right to travel freely.”

However, critics of the amendment presented their counterarguments, with Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) categorically refuting the claim that the mandate entails anything beyond surveillance.

“The amendment . . . does not require auto manufacturers to install kill switches. It does not do that,” Schulz stated, prompting Rep. Massie to subsequently recite the law word for word during his speech in the House. Schultz also asserted that the requirement aims to “save lives” and safeguard “public safety,” while disregarding Rep. Massie’s stance on personal freedom.

“You don’t have a right to engage in potentially fatal behavior that we know poses a major health threat to public safety,” she said. 

Massie’s amendment was unsuccessful, receiving 201 votes in favor and 229 votes against.