If cars are required by law to have speed limiting, that means they can know when and where a car is speeding. Cars are closely tied to their owners in many ways (registration, insurance, etc.). One way this could be seen as being a step in the wrong direction is that it not only sets a precedent for collecting that information, but is forcing car manufacturers to start building up that ability.

I personally think it's pretty obvious why people might not want an entity (public governments, or private companies) to have access to that kind of information. You might say well that's all easily mitigated by encrypting the data or making tracking individuals illegal, to which I would ask: what gives you any confidence that the EU (or any government) would enforce/protect that, when there's evidence they are actively anti-encryption and pro-snooping in other domains?

If you need to be walked through the reasoning behind why it might be a bad idea to ~allow~ require these systems to be built, idk what to tell you lol

> that means they can know when and where a car is speeding

These systems don't require reporting data back, and there is no technical reason for them to do so. In fact, nothing in the legislation suggests this.

> it not only sets a precedent for collecting that information, but is forcing car manufacturers to start building up that ability.

Not only have states and cities started doing this, via ALPR, but cars are increasingly being provisioned with cell modems, and have truly awful privacy policies. Manufacturers view this information as a revenue stream.

So, not only does the "possible" situation you describe already exist, but the worst of it is non-state incentivized data collection from car makers. Both of those are (serious, imo) problems, but already exist, and are independent of speed alerting.

So idk what to tell you lol

I said that they can know this data, not that they will... Not requiring data reporting doesn't mean that the data won't be reported, as you seem to be already aware of.

I am also in no way in support of the things you're referencing, just because they already exist doesn't mean it's just OK to accept further erosion of privacy. ALPR, cars with cell modems - these things are part of the same "slippery slope" of privacy wrt cars. As far as I can tell, you're saying "what you're worried about is already happening, so why bother being concerned about it getting worse?". How exactly is that helpful?

So maybe you're right, this isn't a "bad first step" - because it's actually the continuation of steps along a path that was no good form the start.

The point still stands that having the government get involved, making it a legal requirement for new cars to develop these bad systems, is a bad thing for individual privacy. It's not independent of requiring speed alerting, because the government is effectively saying "not only do we not care that this is happening, we're now requiring it".

> As far as I can tell, you're saying "what you're worried about is already happening, so why bother being concerned about it getting worse?".

I called them "serious problems". I don't know how you extrapolated "why bother being concerned" from "serious problems".

And my point still stands that the situation you described, is, incredibly, not only not based in reality, but also simultaneously exists through other means.

There are, of course, reasons to oppose something like this - but, the reasons you're choosing to oppose this are moot, in every feasible way.

The concern I'm raising is that this legislation opens the door for further reductions in the privacy of location. In what way is that concern not based in reality?