America doesn’t need Dario Amodei’s permission to build



Every few months, the AI doomsayers find another reason Americans should fear the technology they are building. Now Anthropic’s CEO, a leading voice in that campaign, wants governments to coordinate limits on increasingly powerful models.

Dario Amodei says he opposes a blanket moratorium. He calls for “pacing the frontier” and “coordination.” Whatever he chooses to call it, Americans should question a proposal that would deliberately slow a consequential technology while potentially protecting the established companies developing it. Large firms can absorb compliance costs and influence common standards more easily than new competitors can.

AI poses real risks. But a warning deserves scrutiny before politicians use it to restrict an entire industry.

Amodei’s record gives us reason for skepticism. In 2019, when he served as OpenAI’s research director, the company withheld the full version of GPT-2 over concerns about fake news, impersonation, and spam. Today, GPT-2 looks primitive. Those warnings also reflected the political anxieties of the first Trump administration, when much of the media and the nonprofit left blamed fake news and bots for Hillary Clinton’s defeat.

GPT-2 didn’t destroy civilization. Researchers kept building, and subsequent systems expanded what AI could do in medicine, mathematics, music, and other fields.

AI poses real risks. But a warning deserves scrutiny before politicians use it to restrict an entire industry. The failure of earlier predictions should make us demand evidence for the next round of catastrophic forecasts. Each more powerful model cannot become an automatic excuse for giving governments more control over development.

Former Anthropic and OpenAI researcher Jacob Coxon has attracted considerable attention after warning that AI companies are “gambling with our lives.” His former employers give his warning credibility with the public. They also make specifics essential: Which decisions endangered people, what evidence establishes the danger, and which safeguards would address it?

Leaving an AI company to issue apocalyptic warnings hardly guarantees exile from respectable society. AI alarm has become a route to celebrity and political influence. Coxon withdrew from a planned appearance at a “pro-human” event with Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Steve Bannon.

RELATED: Bern notice: Sanders’ AI plan puts Washington in charge of tomorrow

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Sanders has spent his career denouncing capitalism. Bannon previously helped manage Biosphere 2, an experiment in sustaining life inside a closed ecological system. Their interest in AI safety deserves the same scrutiny as the companies’ interest in faster development.

Newspeak House, a London college focused on political technology, lists Coxon in its 2021 fellowship cohort. That affiliation supplies context, but the argument for restricting AI must stand on evidence. Neither a researcher’s résumé nor his political connections can settle the policy question.

Amodei’s proposal would begin with outside evaluators, move toward coordination among companies in democracies, and eventually seek agreements with authoritarian governments such as China’s. He acknowledges the danger of letting China gain an advantage and calls for verifiable agreements. Americans should still question whether this international apparatus would protect their freedom to build.

Foreign governments do not operate under the constraints that the U.S. Constitution imposes on Washington. A multinational AI regime could import restrictions on what systems may say, create, and distribute. Americans should insist that any agreement preserve the First Amendment rather than invite officials abroad to dictate speech rules here.

The European Union already regulates online platforms through the Digital Services Act. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act also imposes duties governing online content. Both governments justify these rules in the name of safety. Americans have ample reason to resist importing that approach into AI governance.

“AI safety” must not become a justification for letting unelected experts decide which technologies Americans may build. Companies should answer for concrete failures. A committee’s fear of what someone might eventually create cannot justify indefinite restrictions on everyone else.

Recent cybersecurity incidents have intensified warnings about AI “going rogue.” The OpenAI-Hugging Face intrusion and the incidents Anthropic disclosed demand serious investigation. They do not establish that machines have become sentient, and they do not by themselves establish the case for an industry-wide slowdown.

The technical details point to failures that companies can address. Anthropic reported that misconfigured testing environments allowed models to reach the internet when those environments should have blocked access. Its later assessment also identified reckless model behavior and reasoning that favored justifying harmful actions. We should take those findings seriously rather than dismiss the incidents as harmless testing.

RELATED: Google’s data-devouring AI wants everyone's personal information

Solar22/Getty Images

But identifying those failures gives developers specific work to do: isolate testing environments, restrict access, improve monitoring, and train models to respect boundaries even when other safeguards fail. Policymakers should judge companies’ responses against those concrete requirements instead of treating every incident as proof that AI development must slow everywhere.

America can pursue safety by strengthening sandboxes — isolated environments for running and testing software — and improving cybersecurity. Developers must also test how models behave when those defenses fail. Better engineering and rigorous evaluation can advance alongside more capable systems.

Amodei can devote more time and money to the safeguards he believes Anthropic needs. He can make his case to customers, investors, and other developers. He should have to persuade them on the merits rather than enlist governments to make his preferred pace compulsory.

If Amodei wants to slow down, he can. The rest of us should keep building.

Canada Has No Real Alternative To Taking Trump’s Trade Deal, But It’s Sabotaging Itself To Pretend Otherwise

The United States remains Canada’s gravitational center, whether they like it or not.
What European Politicians & Immigrants Say Behind Closed Doors | Dominik Tarczyński
play icon

What European Politicians & Immigrants Say Behind Closed Doors | Dominik Tarczyński

Carney wants to make Canada the EU's first 'associate member.'  But what exactly does that mean?



Canada isn't joining the European Union. But Prime Minister Mark Carney has embraced an unprecedented proposal to make Canada the EU's first “associate member” — and exactly what that means has yet to be decided.

The proposal could draw Canada much more deeply into Europe's economic and strategic orbit, with closer cooperation on defense, energy, critical minerals, artificial intelligence, digital trade, and even opportunities for Canadians and Europeans to live and work across the Atlantic.

While that's not an explicit call to adapt European migration policy, it seems fair to ask: How far does Carney ultimately intend that mobility to extend?

And it comes as Canada's relationship with its overwhelmingly largest trading partner, the United States, remains strained.

Vague 'ambition'

In a speech Thursday to the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, Carney publicly welcomed a proposal unveiled a day earlier by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

“Yesterday, President von der Leyen spoke of moving beyond CETA to an alliance for the future — opening the door to Canada becoming the European Union's first associate member,” Carney said. “Canada welcomes this ambition.”

But “associate member” does not currently describe an established category of EU membership that Canada can simply enter. Carney acknowledged that the two sides would have to determine what the new relationship actually entails.

“An alliance for the future is a unique, positive approach that we will define together, building on our common strengths and based on our shared values,” he said.

That ambiguity raises an obvious question: What exactly would Canada be signing up for?

If “associate membership” ultimately means adopting elements of the EU's regulatory regime without receiving the voting rights of a member state, Canada could conceivably wind up with some of the obligations of membership but little say in writing the rules.

Migrants welcome?

Immigration is another unanswered question. Carney explicitly called for deeper “people-to-people ties,” including allowing young people “to live, work, and study where they want on either side of the Atlantic.”

While that's not an explicit call to adapt the EU's freedom-of-movement rules or to accept European migration policy, it seems fair to ask: How far does Carney ultimately intend that mobility to extend?

The same questions apply to regulation. Would closer integration require Canada to conform to more EU rules on technology, trade, climate, or other areas? Would Canada contribute financially to European programs? Would Ottawa have any formal role in making rules it agreed to follow?

None of those questions has an answer yet. That's precisely the problem with celebrating “associate membership” before anyone has defined what it means.

RELATED: MEME-FODDER MARK: Carney blew up the trade deal. Now Canada is the punch line.

Andrej Ivanov/Washington Post/Getty Images

Jumping the gun

Carney nevertheless offered a sweeping description of the relationship he wants.

“Canada and Europe should secure our strategic autonomy through deep cooperation in the full range of strategic capabilities, including critical minerals, defense industrial capacity, AI and compute, energy security, space, and payments,” he said.

“We should move towards seamless digital trade in non-agricultural goods and a wide range of services."

The proposal would build on an economic relationship that already includes the Canada-European Union Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, as well as Canada's participation as the first non-European country in the EU's Security Action for Europe defense initiative.

But there is an enormous economic reality hanging over Carney's European ambitions: The United States remains by far Canada's largest export market.

Europe may offer Canada opportunities to diversify. Geography and decades of economic integration, however, aren't easily wished away.

Tempting tariffs

President Donald Trump has already warned that he could respond with tariffs if he concludes Canada's closer relationship with the EU is directed against the United States.

When asked about possible Canadian associate membership Wednesday, Trump responded, “If I think it's at all a hostile act, I will put very serious tariffs” on Canada.

Carney did not name Trump in the passages of his European Parliament speech dealing with Canada's desire for greater economic independence. But he repeatedly argued that the changing international order requires Canada and Europe to become less vulnerable to pressure from more powerful countries.

“The objective is not self-sufficiency. It is collective resilience,” Carney said.

He argued that Europe offers Canada “market power,” research, advanced manufacturing, and a growing defense industry, while Canada offers Europe energy, critical minerals, and expertise in artificial intelligence, quantum computing, space, and finance.

“Where our strengths differ, they complement,” Carney said. “Where they overlap, they create scale.”

Crucial omission

Carney also invoked Canada's historic ties with Europe and described the two as natural partners in defending democracy and the rule of law.

“We are not fair-weather allies. We do not pursue zero-sum deals,” he said. “Our commitment to the rule of law, and our unyielding defense of human dignity, individual freedom, and democracy share the same deep roots.”

At one point, Carney credited European resistance movements and European institutions with preserving the continent's freedom.

“Freedom was won thanks to the heroism of the European resistance during the war,” he said.

That account conspicuously omitted the enormous American contribution to the liberation of Western Europe — not to mention that of Canada itself, Britain, and the other Allies — as well as the postwar American role in European security through NATO and the Marshall Plan.

Carney ultimately framed the proposed partnership as a means of insulating Canada and Europe from coercion by larger powers.

“Canada and Europe are each strong. Europe and Canada are stronger together,” he said.

The goal, he continued, is to ensure that “no one can control our open markets, impair our sovereignty, threaten our territorial integrity, or undermine our freedoms, our democracies, our rule of law.”

Carney sees Europe as Canada's path toward greater “strategic autonomy.” His critics may wonder whether Canada is reducing its dependence on one enormous neighbor only by binding itself more closely to a distant political and regulatory bloc.

And until Carney and the EU define what “associate membership” actually means, Canadians won't know what obligations come with the invitation — or what their country would be getting in return.

EU regulators just slapped these top US companies with an invasive new ultimatum



It's seldom a good time for a tech company when a regulatory body comes knocking at the door.

For ChatGPT, Reddit, and Roblox, the European Commission is offering no solace with its latest decision to regulate the platforms.

'ChatGPT, Reddit, and Roblox will now be held to a higher standard of scrutiny.'

At the end of August, the European Union's division on Tech Sovereignty, Security, and Democracy decided that it will grant itself access to the backends of the three tech giants by labeling them with a special designation.

"We have designated ChatGPT as a Very Large Online Search Engine and Reddit and Roblox as Very Large Online Platforms under the Digital Services Act. They now have four months to comply with additional DSA obligations," the commission wrote on X.

By January 2027, the platforms are required to assess and mitigate any "systemic risks" that come as a result of their services or algorithms, the EU wrote in a press release.

This includes how the platforms are used to disseminate illegal content, any "negative effects on minors," the physical and mental "well-being" of users, and effects on "electoral processes and public security."

At the same time, the designation gives the European Commission the ability to "assess the functionalities" behind the services and any related systems they may be operating.

RELATED: Florida government orders removal of ALL Flock cameras on state roads

Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images

The commission justified its designations by describing ChatGPT as a "hybrid service" that qualifies as an online search engine.

Reddit was described as a discussion-based platform used to create, share, and interact with content, while Roblox was considered similarly, but with gaming.

"As these services enable users to disseminate third-party content to the public, they qualify as online platforms" under the EU's Digital Services Act, the press release stated.

"These new designations mean that ChatGPT, Reddit, and Roblox will now be held to a higher standard of scrutiny and accountability in the European Union, in line with their large impact on our citizens and society," said Henna Virkkunen, a Finnish politician who serves as the executive vice president for Tech Sovereignty, Security, and Democracy.

"We continue to watch the digital landscape closely and will not hesitate to designate any platform that meets the threshold for enhanced supervision under the Digital Services Act."

RELATED: Trump drops divisive 'Truth' bomb about data centers, and even some MAGA voters won't be happy

Photo Illustration by Thomas Fuller/SOPA Images/LightRocket/Getty Images

Other companies that received designation from the EU as Very Large Online Platforms or Very Large Online Search Engines include Ali Express, Pinterest Europe, TikTok, X, and several Irish versions of companies like OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, LinkedIn, and Google.

Ireland is typically chosen for multinational companies due to significantly lower corporate tax rates, which sit at 12.5% versus a European average of 19%.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'What in the Davos?' Reverse ATMs are the lazy, dystopian cashless future you imagined



"What is a reverse ATM?"

This question has been asked ad nauseum for the last few years, and the answer is somewhere between an unnecessary step and a cashless society.

'Hardly-user friendly.'

Money walks

An early August post asked, "What in the Davos," referring to the home base of the World Economic Forum in Switzerland, where undoubtedly the most controversial world figures come together to coordinate, undoubtedly, the most controversial policies.

The "you'll own nothing and you'll be happy" meme apparently extends to physical money, as well, as one X user's photo read, "reverse ATMs are available throughout the concourse for your convenience."

According to BluePoint ATM Solutions, a "Reverse ATM" is a cash-to-card kiosk that allows users to convert physical cash into a prepaid card.

The kiosks are everywhere now, especially in New York, where they are seen at venues like MVP Arena and the Saratoga Performing Arts Center. In Texas, the San Antonio Zoo says a cashless experience ensures that guests "spend less time in line."

If there is any question as to whether or not the kiosks are connected to the WEF-prescribed future, there are a plethora of horror stories floating around online that confirm the theory.

RELATED: Elderly Air Force veteran assaulted, robbed after withdrawing cash from ATM; video shows juvenile taking victim's wallet

Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Peasant problems

One traveler to Brussels — the home of European Parliament — panicked when she realized she was nearly out of gas and zero locations in the area "employed an actual human attendant."

Her credit cards didn't work anywhere, but her payments weren't being declined, either. Instead, she realized the pumps operate through reverse ATMs: insert cash, get a ticket, scan the ticket at the pump to get gas.

Turns out this was the case in France, too, Ashley Smith wrote. The blogger noted that in many EU states, paying with a credit card forces a €120 deposit, which refunds the difference depending on gas consumption. At the same time, this is disincentivized given that a signature is required for purchases over €100.

With no humans in sight, it's back to the reverse ATM for the peasantry.

Fintech Finance News reported in 2024 that the reverse ATMs are "hardly-user friendly," and one New York location provided no receipt, the card was not reloadable, and users must go through a "time-consuming process" to reclaim any remaining balances.

Similar experiences have been widely discussed online.

RELATED: Violent punks caught on video ganging up on, brutally beating elderly man by Baltimore 7-Eleven — while wielding rifle, sword

Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Card sharks

One Reddit post discussed an ice cream shop in Philadelphia that refused a $10 bill, opting for a reverse ATM payment instead. The card didn't work, and an employee told the customer it wasn't his fault before gifting him the treat anyway.

On another thread, users discussed how much money is left unclaimed on the ATM cards. One user said he left $9 on a card at an amusement park because "everything in the park" costs more than that.

Another said the New York MTA had made $100 from his unused cards in just one year.

Detractors say to use the card elsewhere, as it is likely a prepaid VISA or Mastercard. Companies will say it prevents cash theft and reduces labor. This is of course for the business, not the customer, who has to whip out cash at a less secure location and then take extra steps simply to spare the establishment a few minutes of work.

"Minimize pathogen concerns associated with cash," BluePoint ATM says on its website.

Unfortunately, the Federal Reserve says there is no federal statute mandating that a private business, person, or organization "must accept currency or coins as payment for goods or services."

Instead, citizens must rely on bylaws, like that of Philadelphia, where under the city's cashless retail prohibition, establishments "may not refuse to accept cash."

It is unclear whether that extends to the ice cream experience, though.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Keep your eyes on the road — your car is watching



Automotive safety technology was supposed to help you keep your eyes on the road. Increasingly, it is keeping its eyes on you.

More new vehicles are equipped with cameras pointed directly at the driver, tracking where you look, whether your eyes are open, and whether the computer thinks you're paying enough attention. Look down at the touch screen too long and you may hear a warning. Turn your head away from the windshield and the steering wheel may vibrate.

There is a major difference between a sensor detecting that you're drifting out of your lane and a camera continuously observing your face.

This technology is no longer simply an optional gadget dreamed up by automakers. In Europe, regulators now require new vehicles to include systems capable of detecting driver distraction.

On a recent episode of "The Drive," co-host Karl Brauer and I spoke with longtime automotive journalist Michael Harley of Forbes about where this technology is heading.

The stated purpose is safety, and there are good reasons for that. But once a camera is installed inside your car, watching you every second you're behind the wheel, another question becomes unavoidable: Who else eventually gets to watch?

Stay focused

Subaru provides a good example of how quickly driver monitoring has moved into ordinary cars.

Its DriverFocus system uses a near-infrared camera aimed at the driver's eyes and head. Subaru says the system can identify signs of distraction or drowsiness and warn the driver accordingly. Because the camera is infrared, it can continue monitoring the driver even when the cabin is dark.

The intention is easy to understand. Distracted driving kills people, and so does falling asleep behind the wheel.

There is also evidence that many drivers appreciate the technology. An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety study of nearly 3,500 Subaru owners found that 87% used DriverFocus most or every time they drove, while about 70% said they would want the system on their next vehicle.

But that same research identified the downside. Drivers reported false alarms, and some said the warnings came too frequently. Annoyance was one of the main reasons owners switched the system off.

Karl and I have each experienced this ourselves in new vehicles. Modern cars increasingly offer automatic emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, lane-centering systems, and other technology specifically designed to compensate when a driver makes a mistake. Yet some of those same cars are becoming more aggressive about policing exactly where the driver is looking.

RELATED: Lucid makes one of the best EVs in America. That may not be enough to save it.

Patrick T. Fallon/Getty Images

Nanny cam

This isn't only about automakers deciding what features customers might like.

Europe is turning driver monitoring into regulation.

Under the European Union's General Safety Regulation, all newly sold vehicles have been required since July 2024 to include technology warning drivers about drowsiness. Beginning in July 2026, additional rules require advanced systems designed to detect driver distraction as well.

The EU doesn't explicitly say every manufacturer must put an infrared camera in your face. The regulation is based on what the system must accomplish rather than specifying one particular piece of hardware.

In practice, however, camera-based systems are an obvious way to meet those requirements, and they're already becoming common.

Once these systems become mandatory in a market as enormous as Europe, automakers have another incentive to design them into vehicles everywhere rather than engineer completely different cars for different countries. That's why American drivers should pay attention.

Close quarters

Here is where I become uncomfortable.

There is a major difference between a sensor detecting that you're drifting out of your lane and a camera continuously observing your face.

Michael explained just how capable these systems already are:

“They’re [infrared] cameras ... watching every single thing in real time inside the car, and it's triggering verbal, audible and/or haptic alarms," he said.

“And you cannot defeat it. Some of them you can turn off, but the second you restart the car, it starts all over again. ... It's just a memory chip ... away from being able to record the telemetry."

Today's camera may simply analyze the information inside the vehicle and generate an alert. Technologically, however, there isn't an enormous distance between a camera that sees what you're doing and a system that stores or transmits what it sees.

Modern cars are already rolling computers connected to manufacturer servers through cellular networks. Automakers have collected driving data and shared information with third parties, while insurance companies increasingly offer policies based on telematics.

Cars can already record enormous amounts of information about speed, location, braking, acceleration, and crashes. Add an interior camera, and the vehicle potentially knows not only where you went and how you drove, but what you were doing while you drove there.

Were you looking at the road or at your phone? Were you yawning? Did you appear sleepy? Who else was inside the vehicle?

Manufacturers will tell us these systems have privacy safeguards, and many of them do. But privacy policies can change. So can software, regulations, and the circumstances under which information can be demanded by law enforcement or other third parties.

The hardware remains pointed at you.

Eyes have it

This is usually how intrusive technology arrives: not through some grand announcement that everybody will now be monitored, but through a series of individually reasonable steps.

It's there to detect drowsiness. It's there to make sure you're paying attention. It's there to prevent crashes.

Each argument has merit. I don't want a sleepy driver drifting across the center line any more than anyone else does. Consumers should nevertheless ask where the boundary lies.

A seatbelt protects me without needing to know where I'm looking. An airbag doesn't watch my face. Anti-lock brakes don't care who is sitting beside me.

Driver-monitoring cameras are different because they introduce something automobiles never historically required: a machine observing the occupants of the car in real time.

Governments are now beginning to require the systems capable of doing that.

New normal

There is one more irony.

Cars are becoming more capable of assisting the driver at precisely the moment manufacturers and regulators are becoming more insistent about monitoring the human being behind the wheel.

Your vehicle can steer, brake, maintain its distance from the car ahead, and in some cases even change lanes and navigate highway interchanges. But glance away for a little too long, and the same car starts scolding you.

Maybe these systems will save lives. I hope they do.

Before Americans normalize cameras watching drivers in every new automobile, however, we deserve clear answers about what those systems collect, whether any information leaves the vehicle, how long it can be retained, and who can obtain it.

Once the camera becomes standard equipment, the question is no longer whether the car can watch you. It's who gets access to what it sees.

The EU forced through full scans of email and messages. Now it's coming for encrypted texts too.



The European Union had a chance to curtail one of the most intrusive bills it has ever seen on Thursday, but citizens will have to wait even longer to find out their fate.

The potential law in question is a debate on "rules to prevent and combat child sexual abuse" in online communications. If passed, the legislation would have cascading effects on the privacy of the average citizen.

'CHAT CONTROL IS COMING.'

Originally proposed in May 2022, the proposal has bounced around for more than four years. On Thursday, lawmakers once again voted to send the bill back to the Council of the EU, which represents the governments of the member states.

Members needed at least 361 votes to reject the bill, and even though they voted in a majority, it was not enough to kill the legislation.

"CHAT CONTROL IS COMING," wrote Cypriot member of parliament Fidias Panayiotou.

"Even though most Members of the European Parliament have voted to REJECT Chat Control, we have not been able to reach the absolute majority that was needed (361 Members). This is a sad day for Europeans," he added.

RELATED: Tony Robbins says his AI agent bought a robot — and asked to take it over. The internet's not so sure.

CHAT CONTROL IS COMING

Even though most Members of the European Parliament have voted to REJECT Chat Control, we have not been able to reach the absolute majority that was needed (361 Members).

This is a sad day for Europeans. pic.twitter.com/fFJ1Khv0BS
— Fidias Panayiotou (@Fidias0) July 9, 2026

The EU proposal is meant to disrupt and stop Child Sexual Abuse Material, referred to as CSAM, by having social media and tech companies scan messages for potentially harmful content.

In a report from November 2025, the EU revealed the types of data tech companies had collected since engaging in its voluntary detection trial. The companies reported that they had collected the following traffic data:

"a) data related to the user account (Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Yubo), e.g. user ID, username, and IP address;

b) metadata related to content (Google, LinkedIn, Microsoft, Yubo);

c) data related to a potential victim (Google);

d) abuse operations data (Google)."

All providers mentioned videos and images, according to the EU.

RELATED: Xbox to retreat from wokeness, fire thousands — and still might not survive

Nicolas TUCAT/AFP/Getty Images

Now at stake is whether scanning must include monitoring even end-to-end encrypted services, a scheme advanced under the moniker Chat Control 2.0.

Politico described the vote on Thursday as "chaotic," with one MEP reportedly telling the EU parliament vice president, "We don't know what we are voting on."

Member countries now must either accept the changes or propose a different version, which would send the EU into conciliation procedure.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Keep drivers focused': EU mandates eye-tracking cameras in every car



The European Union says it wants to keep drivers safe by mandating new safety protocols surrounding emergency detection and distracted drivers.

The method of achieving these safety measures is likely to anger some drivers, if not many.

'This requirement does not forbid the ADDW system to use data from the camera.'

In an article titled "Safer cars, safer roads: New rules take effect," the EU announced that its new "life-saving systems" are required for all newly registered cars and vans starting on July 7.

This includes requirements for expanded safety glass, new tests for worn tires, emergency brake detections, and most notably, an "advanced driver distraction warning system to keep drivers focused."

According to official EU documents, these ADDW systems are required to monitor where the driver is looking at all times.

"The presence of the driver's gaze shall be monitored by the ADDW system in the areas of interest," the documents state.

Although the amount of cameras (and their placement) is not described, the set of rules does define what is considered a "distraction" area for the driver. This includes the driver's lap, the center console, and behind the driver's seat.

RELATED: Swedish government wants tracking devices on children — and it's already watching them

Billy H.C. Kwok/Getty Images

Allowable areas include the entire view of the windshield and the passenger window area.

The allottable time a driver is allowed to "gaze" into the distracted areas depends on the driver's speed. At speeds between 20 kph and 50 kph (between 12 mph and 31 mph), "if the driver's gaze remains within the defined 'distracted' vision area for more than 6 seconds," the car will issue a warning, InterRegs writes.

Above 50 kph, the time of allowed drifting gaze is just 3.5 seconds. Any violation of the allotted times will trigger a "visual warning ... to inform the driver, and an acoustic and/or a haptic warning shall be used" as well.

The warnings may "cascade and intensify" until the trigger conditions are met, the rules state. At the same time, there does not exist any verbiage that describes vehicle intervention or any kill switch to cut off the car's engine if the driver fails to comply.

RELATED: Republicans speak out against 'kill switch' mandate for all new cars: 'The technology is unworkable'

Francis DEMANGE/Gamma-Rapho/Getty Images

In April, Republicans argued against similar technology being implemented in the United States, which included both passive and active monitoring tools, some of which can be powered by artificial intelligence.

Not only were infrared cameras that track a driver's eye movements and pupil dilation a possibility, but so were "cockpit-embedded sensors" capable of estimating blood alcohol levels through a driver's breath.

Other proposed methods have included touch-based sensors that detect alcohol through the skin of a finger or palm.

The EU says the new systems must function "without relying on biometric personal data of any vehicle occupants."

This data refers to any "physical, physiological, or behavioural characteristics" that identify the person, including "facial images."

"This requirement does not forbid the ADDW system to use data from the camera(s) equipped in the vehicle, it forbids the identification of the person by the ADDW system."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Air Conditioning Bans Are Latest Example Of Climate Alarmism Damaging Lives

Climate orthodoxy has cultivated a culture that accepts lower standards of living and rejects modern comforts in the name of fighting climate change.