Europe or EU has never looked at data protection against private companies and data protection against government as one and the same. Remember, that even GDPR has carveout for governmental use.
It's also absolutely no secret that fattest margins and profits for automobile industry is also made with "aftermarket service" - which include upsales and inflated prices for service intervals.
There's a reason they all now need digital service books which are locked to their partnerships.
On a site of tech enthusiasts I'd expect an intelligence level of understanding the difference between an embedded ADAS camera and a surveillance system. So how about you check you assumptions first? :)
Just because someone wrote a post on a site with orange banner it doesn't mean they agree with other people that wrote posts on the site with the orange banner.
Let's learn the concept of "different people have different opinions", shall we?
John Deere itself went far to prevent repairs and fought tooth and nail against it in the court - why would they spend so much effort on something that's not profitable?
The corporation you're defending is disproving your point by their own actions.
Let's start with actually punishing a scammer, ANY SCAMMER with the same gusto as the jackboot of copyright enforcement hits anyone in the world for daring to look an MCU movie the wrong way.
Can't quite speak for UK, but in EU cases I know about its because some (popular) watches need special provisioning process for eSIMs and getting that proprietary software requires carrier to beg our favorite mega corps for provisioning software and do extra work.
It's not like phones where pSIMs were relatively brand agnostic, were back to per-hardware BS.