Teslas Are A Privacy Nightmare: Staff Regularly Shared Camera Recordings, Made Memes & Jokes At Customers’ Expense
from the your-car-shouldn't-spy-on-you dept
Ever since Tesla first made the news, I had thought it would be a great car to own. The last few years have really disabused me of that notion, given the serious questions raised about the integrity of the company’s CEO. But even so, I’m pretty shocked by this latest Reuters report detailing how Tesla employees regularly would not only view images from Tesla’s built in cameras, but also make jokes and memes out of them and share them around the office.
This is the kind of behavior you’d expect in an late 90s dot com bubble era startup before it got serious, but Tesla is big enough and prominent enough that it is seriously troubling to learn it does not have basic controls to prevent this sort of privacy invasion:
But between 2019 and 2022, groups of Tesla employees privately shared via an internal messaging system sometimes highly invasive videos and images recorded by customers’ car cameras, according to interviews by Reuters with nine former employees.
Some of the recordings caught Tesla customers in embarrassing situations. One ex-employee described a video of a man approaching a vehicle completely naked.
Also shared: crashes and road-rage incidents. One crash video in 2021 showed a Tesla driving at high speed in a residential area hitting a child riding a bike, according to another ex-employee. The child flew in one direction, the bike in another. The video spread around a Tesla office in San Mateo, California, via private one-on-one chats, “like wildfire,” the ex-employee said.
Other images were more mundane, such as pictures of dogs and funny road signs that employees made into memes by embellishing them with amusing captions or commentary, before posting them in private group chats. While some postings were only shared between two employees, others could be seen by scores of them, according to several ex-employees.
Serious, professional companies put in place controls and security systems to prevent this sort of thing, because if they don’t, everyone knows what will happen — which is exactly what appears to have happened in the Elon Musk-led company.
I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise at all that a company run by a guy with the maturity of a insecure 15-year-old would not really give two shits about people’s privacy and make jokes and pass around private videos. Of course, fair play: it looks like the Tesla employees also spied on Elon Musk’s own garage.
The boss’s lax attitude towards anyone else’s rights or concerns seems to have trickled down to his employees:
Two ex-employees said they weren’t bothered by the sharing of images, saying that customers had given their consent or that people long ago had given up any reasonable expectation of keeping personal data private.
Indeed, the Reuters report seems to suggest that the boss’s obsession with memes and stupid, sophomoric jokes was encouraged among the young people at the office:
Tesla staffed its San Mateo office with mostly young workers, in their 20s and early 30s, who brought with them a culture that prized entertaining memes and viral online content. Former staffers described a free-wheeling atmosphere in chat rooms with workers exchanging jokes about images they viewed while labeling.
According to several ex-employees, some labelers shared screenshots, sometimes marked up using Adobe Photoshop, in private group chats on Mattermost, Tesla’s internal messaging system. There they would attract responses from other workers and managers. Participants would also add their own marked-up images, jokes or emojis to keep the conversation going. Some of the emojis were custom-created to reference office inside jokes, several ex-employees said.
One former labeler described sharing images as a way to “break the monotony.” Another described how the sharing won admiration from peers.
“If you saw something cool that would get a reaction, you post it, right, and then later, on break, people would come up to you and say, ‘Oh, I saw what you posted. That was funny,’” said this former labeler. “People who got promoted to lead positions shared a lot of these funny items and gained notoriety for being funny.”
Literally: the privacy of Tesla owners is a joke to Tesla employees. Thankfully, at least some people who worked there had a conscience.
“It was a breach of privacy, to be honest. And I always joked that I would never buy a Tesla after seeing how they treated some of these people,” said one former employee.
Another said: “I’m bothered by it because the people who buy the car, I don’t think they know that their privacy is, like, not respected … We could see them doing laundry and really intimate things. We could see their kids.”
One former employee saw nothing wrong with sharing images, but described a function that allowed data labelers to view the location of recordings on Google Maps as a “massive invasion of privacy.”
Later on in the story, we get at least a few more Tesla employees with a conscience:
In interviews, two former employees said in their normal work duties they were sometimes asked to view images of customers in and around their homes, including inside garages.
“I sometimes wondered if these people know that we’re seeing that,” said one.
“I saw some scandalous stuff sometimes, you know, like I did see scenes of intimacy but not nudity,” said another. “And there was just definitely a lot of stuff that like, I wouldn’t want anybody to see about my life.”
As an example, this person recalled seeing “embarrassing objects,” such as “certain pieces of laundry, certain sexual wellness items … and just private scenes of life that we really were privy to because the car was charging.”
And, clearly, someone who saw all this reported it to the Reuters journalists.
This does raise questions about whether or not this use of the images and videos violates various regulations around data protection and privacy. While the US doesn’t have a federal privacy law, there are some state privacy laws in effect that this might violate, and the FTC usually doesn’t take kindly to the idea that data is used for purposes that the consumer did not realize they were consenting too. And it seems like the head of the FTC is already none too pleased with Elon Musk.
But, of course, there may be more serious problems in the EU where this would likely raise some big GDPR concerns. While I have many issues with the GDPR, at the very least this seems like exactly what that law is supposed to prevent.
Incredibly, the article ends by noting top performing data labelers could win the use of a Tesla for a day or two (it’s not like Tesla paid its data labelers enough to afford its cars themselves), but some of those who won felt uncomfortable claiming the prize, as they worried about invasions of their own privacy.
I often think that many of the privacy concerns people discuss regarding the internet are totally overblown. People don’t mind sharing certain data in exchange for something valuable, but the key elements for dealing with privacy is that users should (1) understand the trade-offs involved, with knowledge of what data they’re giving up and what concrete benefit they’re getting in exchange, and (2) they should have some control and visibility into that data to make sure that the trade-offs remain aligned.
I can’t see how Tesla employees making memes of the images and videos they took inside people’s garages of occasionally intimate and private situations, even when the car is off, meets any of those criteria.
Filed Under: cameras, data labeling, elon musk, memes, privacy, surveillance, videos
Companies: tesla


Comments on “Teslas Are A Privacy Nightmare: Staff Regularly Shared Camera Recordings, Made Memes & Jokes At Customers’ Expense”
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Just get a jammer to jam wireless internet and stop anything frim being sent out.
Jamming data does not break us US laws as it is at 700 Mhz and voice calls are at 1500, 1900, and 2300 Mhz, aimyiuncan jam one but not the othe
Re:
This is blatantly false. For an example of what happened to someone who did exactly what you suggest: https://youtu.be/bn3MZp1qKmw
Also
https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement
Notice the FCC page makes no distinction between wireless internet frequencies and voice frequencies
Re: Re:
Your link is valid, but you’re forgetting one proviso. Look at the very first sentence again (bold on that page):
Inflicting a penalty for using a jammer will depend on the word “authorized”. Who authorized someone/anyone to invade my privacy? As long as I’m careful to jam only those radio signals that directly and actually concern my privacy, I can assert that I did not authorize any such communication.
Re: Re: Re:
In this context, “authorized” means “operating on fcc licensed bands for fcc licensed reasons”, not “the user explicitly consents to the content of the communications”. An example of unauthorized communications would be encrypted or commercial radio on the HAM radio spectrum (which is mandated by the FCC to be unencrypted and noncommercial). The teslas here are using the cellular bands for cellular data, this, they are authorized.
Furthermore, there is no way to jam only “user non-consented” communications, while permitting user consented communications on the same band, so the distinction is moot.
Re: Re: Re:2
True, but a transmission that is itself illegal cannot be authorized in the FCC-approved sense.
Re: Re: Re:3
A. The transmission is almost certainly not illegal. I guarantee Tesla includes this data collection in some monolithic privacy policy owners agree to. The spreading beyond the intended recipients may violate state privacy law, but the transmission itself almost certainly does not violate FCC regulations.
B. Once again, jamming is indiscriminate. It doesn’t matter if you only intend to block one specific signal, you’re blocking them all (within range).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
He used the wrong jammer
Jamming goa is illegal but jamming data is not.
If you are going to use a jammer you need one that is more selective. Yiy can select data bands but leave gos and voice calls alone
Jamming cameras is not illegal.nwurh perverts outting cameras in hotel bathrooms I use jammers that jam the 900 And 1200 MHz bands these cameras use.
I used that once years ago when I thought ok a girifruend of mine and her daughter to Disneyland to protect them from perverts who might have a concealed camera.
I was not breaking any FCC rules doing that. Protecting them from perverts did not break any law. I just made sure the jammer only jammed the 990 and 1200 MHz bands cameras were using at that time
Re: Re: Re:
Both of those bands are sanctioned for amateur use. You were jamming authorized communications by jamming those bands. See here for a prosecution of someone who jammed up amateur radio bands: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-20-255A1.pdf
Incidentally, by using a transmitter (assumably) without a license, you were also violating 47 U.S. Code § 301.
How many videos and picture from inside Teslas have made it to the porn sites?
Notably, Tesla was headquartered in California before December 2021, and still has factories and employees there. California’s privacy law took effect at the beginning of 2020.
But, then, there are a lot of companies headquartered in California which are known for privacy violations, and I don’t recall seeing any CCPA prosecutions yet.
I am starting to suspect that most all of Musk’s businesses are nothing but a house of cards.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Wow, three stories in one day disparaging Musk. Surely now he’ll bring back the censorship you want so much! And if not, try four.
The internet is full of people’s embarrassing moments, some private, caught on video. That’s just how things are, no matter how much the privacy nuts hate it. So is gallows humor. So is employees laughing at customers.
Re:
Oh, I see that you have downloaded that magical browser plug-in that forces you to read Techdirt articles.
BTW, ever hear of self-control?
Re:
You say that like it justifies mass-scale privacy invasions.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
Something fundamentally harmless doesn’t need much justification.
Re: Re: Re:
Then post your Social Security numbe. After all, according to you, exposing your private information is “fundamentally harmless” because that’s “just how things are”.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
We’ve been through this before. Just because I don’t find privacy to be important doesn’t mean that I supply information to arbitrary people who ask for it. I hand my credit card over to anyone who needs to process a payment for me without doing any sort of security check, but I don’t post the number publicly. If you want that information, work for it.
Also, such codes are (more or less) secret rather than private – they don’t contain any information themselves, they’re just used as a (more or less) secure means of identification.
Re: Re: Re:3
Hyman.
So you also think that harassment is a good thing to do to people who deserve it.
You also think doxxing, revenge porn and all those privacy-related crimes are imaginary, because, after all, the fucking information should be shared at will, because no one lies about the shit they will do to your private information.
You’re as bad as Jhon Smith.
Don’t fucking cry when Visa et al sell your Social Security number and and your CC info to the highest bidder and you get implicated in a crime due to identitty theft then. I hear a SIM Swap is easy to do with stolen identities.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
He does, which is why you can unapologetically threaten him with violence and rape. Literally nobody will defend him.
Re: Re: Re:5
You can unapologetically threaten me with violence and rape because I don’t care about criticism from people I don’t respect. Indeed, I take such threats as a sign that my posts are having significant and irrefutable impact – when you cannot pound the law and you cannot pound the facts, you pound the table.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:6
Pounding the table is what ineffective straight trash like you do. We pound the ass. Specifically, yours.
Re: Re: Re:6
Hyman.
The FACTS, as they stand, are:
Re: Re: Re:6
Projects Hyman, who has never once had facts on his side, so he only pounds the table hating on subjects he’s 100% ignorant about.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:4
It’s not so much that privacy-related crimes are imaginary as that they are rare enough that the proposed remedies, which inconvenience everyone, should not be applied. (“Click to accept cookies”, for example.) It’s not unlike the woke ideologues who want to end the “carceral state” and let criminals out of prison. It’s not that they believe that those criminals will never commit crimes again, it’s that they think that will happen with low enough probability that it’s not worth continuing such punishment.
Revenge porn can just be made illegal.
Doxxing is also under legal attack, but that’s a much harder row to hoe given the 1st Amendment, and it’s done by all sides, such as holding pro-choice demonstrations in front of Justice Kavanaugh’s home. Generally speaking, I oppose making illegal the publication of publicly available information about a person, including their address and phone number.
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m sorry the law has to account for insurrectionist Nazis like you, Hyman.
As in, to ensure you don’t do them, because you clearly think harassment should be legal.
Re: Re: Re:5
Privacy nut heal thyself!
Re: Re: Re:5
So what’re your address and phone number then?
Re: Re: Re:3
That seems to be a rather pointless difference. If you are not ok with sending random strangers your dick-pics, but you are ok with sending your dick-pics to your bank and with your bank sending your dick-pics to random strangers, then you are effectively ok with sending random strangers your dick-pics…
Re: Re: Re:3 Asking for Info
I’m assuming you use a browser, and further, Javascript enabled since you are here and the site functions enough for you to post.
“I could have fun wid dat.”
Re: Re: Re:
Define “harmless”. I believe the reasonable privacy of a lot of people was harmed by this. Whatever your opinion on the matter, “invasion of privacy” is a legally recognized harm and one recognized by society. Not to mention that private details like credit card numbers or Social Security numbers can also be leaked.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
“Harmless” as in “causes no tangible damage”. A parade of horribles that might happen is just the usual “think of the children” excuse that people who want to get their way always use, despite the actual inconvenience their implemented paranoia causes to people who do not care. As in, “click to accept cookies” everywhere, brought to you by the same privacy morons who are complaining now.
Re: Re: Re:3
So, any nonviolent act would qualify. Like identity theft.
I’m sorry, but just because you don’t believe in privacy doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Yes, there is such a thing as going too far. This isn’t one of them.
Re: Re: Re: Practice what you preach
… said the person posting anonymously.
It’s strange how frequently the people arguing against privacy do so under the mask of anonymity.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I post anonymously because the site owner has chosen to send my signed-in posts to moderation, and I don’t feel like waiting.
Re: Re: Re:3
Yes, hello Hyman! How is your spring going? Seen any good films?
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re: Re:3
Half my posts making fun of cunts like you get the moderation treatment. You’re not nearly as special as you think you are.
The main difference here is that my self-esteem isn’t tied to what some nobody on the Internet thinks of me, at least not to the extent you have.
Re: Re: Re:4
This line contains a clue as to why…
Re: Re: Re:5
Sure, mostly because it’s a knee-jerk reaction by moderators.
But then people realize that I’m making fun of straight freaks like Hyman Rosen and then all is very quickly forgiven.
Nobody believes straight men are worth standing up for.
Re: Re: Re:3
…said nobody not on hallucinogens, ever.
Re: Re: Re:3
u mad, bro? 🤣
Re: Re: Re:2
Not all do.
And there’s a BIg difference between sharing identity information and old porn. If you record porn, expect it to be seen.
So they can look on your car, and? What are you hiding?
It’s not like any of what is seen is exactly that “bad”
I have always in security cams in my car. They record to the cloud if the car is on, off, whatever.
I wish cars came with that ‘option’ as a default.
So I have no real problem being recorded.
I know some people are privacy nutz. and always on cams should be well spelled out. So that privacy nuts (how many are criminals) can buy elsewhere.
But I see nothing here to write new laws about. Especially when such laws will probably decrease my safety by being abused to make me not able to record what happens in and around my car.
Re: Re: 'X is terrible!' 'Your guy just did X' 'Like I've always said, X is great!'
The lengths Elon fans will go to to defend him exposes such delightful standards of what those people consider acceptable(so long as their side is doing it anyway).
Re:
Yes, the world is full of assholes like you. That doesn’t mean that some humans wouldn’t like to do better.
Re:
Y’know, you people keep saying we liked the old moderation, but we didn’t. We accepted it, and thought it was better than a number of alternatives, but it was mostly just the least bad moderation.
Also, no one expects Musk to change his mind at this point. That was never the goal.
And the ones done without the knowledge or consent of the people depicted taken in private by a business are the ones being objected to here. How they became public is important.
Re:
So where’s your Tesla? Inquiring minds want to know.
You wouldn’t mind sharing that information, right? That’s just how things are.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I don’t own a car at all. New York City, so mostly unnecessary. I rent a ZipCar on the rare occasions I need to drive somewhere. Years ago, when I did own a car, I parked it on the street. It had two or three break-ins over the years, and that was more harm than any privacy violation.
Not being concerned about privacy means that I don’t care how other people might like to get information about me – web pixels, public video cameras, cell phone trackers. I don’t give out information to arbitrary people who ask me for it unless there’s a reason, and I certainly don’t give out magic cookies like passwords, credit card numbers, or my social security number which contain no information in themselves and are just intended to be secrets used for identification purposes.
Re: Re: Re:
The reason being that you do not believe that privacy is necessary, and that everyone else who does not share your lack of concern is, in your opinion, a “privacy nut”. Therefore you are being asked to put your money where your mouth is.
Re:
That the entire, unvarnished truth about Musk seems “disparaging” is nobody’s fault but Musk’s.
Re:
Surely now he’ll bring back the censorship you want so much!
Well shit, son! One of the articles you’re here bitch bitch bitching about is how he did just that to Matt Taibbi and the Twitter Files!
Pick up those feet and catch up, boy! That sarcasm doesn’t have the same effect when we already know we won.
Re:
“The internet is full of people’s embarrassing moments, some private, caught on video. That’s just how things are, no matter how much the privacy nuts hate it.”
People are not “privacy nuts” for being rightfully concerned about employees gaining unauthorized access to the security footage taken by their private vehicle. This is a massive breach of consumer trust, no matter how much you might want to shill for ol’ Musky or give him a blowjob.
Re:
So are pathetic schumcks riding Elon’s dick.
And the censorship never left. He’s been banning people for months at Andy Ngo’s behest, and most recently turned against his own pet Twitter Files hack. If you think Elon isn’t one of the biggest censors around, you’ll probably drown in the shower before long.
Re:
And by the way, dude, MUSK is the one who censored people specifically for supposedly “sharing realtime location data.” Looks like he cares about privacy AND engages in censorship. So take your clown act to a circus where it belongs.
Re: Re:
Elon believes in privacy, all right.
For him, his cronies and his simps.
The rest of us don’t deserve those rights because we think he’s a liar, a cheat and an altogether terrible person.
awful brave of tesla to take on all that liability risk!! a smarter company would’ve contracted that department (and feature) out.
'I don't want the leopard in MY house!'
Incredibly, the article ends by noting top performing data labelers could win the use of a Tesla for a day or two (it’s not like Tesla paid its data labelers enough to afford its cars themselves), but some of those who won felt uncomfortable claiming the prize, as they worried about invasions of their own privacy.
That line is just priceless, the same people who were having a laugh about violating privacy of complete strangers suddenly becoming all sorts of hesitant when it was their privacy on the line.
I Find It Easier To Assume This Happens Everywhere All Of The Time
Vague EULAs and ToS’, low-paid workers, enormous amounts of data collection; I’ve always just assumed this happens at every large tech company. Sure there are various guidelines at more respectable workplaces but those only count if they’re followed/enforced.
Sort of...
The author is generous in saying “15-year-old.”
I still like my Tesla. I don’t go out near it naked, and don’t do too many interesting things. My wife’s retail employer only recently (last year or two) got serious about video sharing; yes, the nominal company policy was to not share, but they recently enacted actual strict policies – log when you watch video, don’t even let police record off the screen (they can ask security dept.), etc. It seems Tesla was too lax and will find out the hard way they need to be more strict. Again, this is typical behaviour you’d find anywhere it’s not controlled properly, you can’t blame more than the general corporate attitude on Elon directly – plus a general attitude to avoid stifling bureaucracy. This shit happens in companies until someone suddenly discovers “whoa! We can’t do that!” Usually they discover the hard way, like this lawsuit. Microsoft, for example, was notorious for stealing stuff from the little guys.
Something wrong with their heads
Perverts
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Mike being retarded again
Mike Concludes:
hmm, that seems alot like a first amendment protected activity, I dont see how there is any historical exception to the first amendment here. These people knowingly signed up for a livestreaming camera, which sends data back to the tesla headquarters, thus there is no breach of privacy whatsoever.
The principal complaint is: how dare people talk about me, within the company, about things that I told the company. As the supreme court has repeatedly said, there is no expectation of privacy in information willingly given to third parties.
Re:
Tell me you have no fucking clue about the 1st amendment without telling me you have no fucking clue.
Re:
Can you point to the part in the signed agreement that says Testa will share interesting or salacious videos amongst themselves (and who knows who else) for their entertainment? Most people would be pretty pissed off to find out that was happening. Tesla tells you why they collect these videos and I bet their started reasons are quite different.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
I think what you are looking for is the “prior restraint” doctrine, where someone needs your permission before they speak about you, versus an “intrusion upon seclusion” which is impossible, when a person agrees to the disclose things to the company.
Re: Re: Re:
Here’s the deal. They didn’t agree to sharing the data for any reason. Otherwise, no one would agree to such a thing, or the contract would violate several privacy laws. What purposes did the contract list the data could be used for?
Re: Opening with 'I'm a bigot', quite the time saver
Well at least you did one thing right by starting with a line that means nothing after that is worth reading.
Re:
[Projects facts contrary to evidence]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
scale models dubai
scale models dubai refer to miniature replicas of buildings, structures, and landscapes in Dubai that are built to scale. These models serve various purposes, including architectural design, urban planning, tourism, and education.
Hello,
Thanks for sharing social bookmarking sites. Its helps to fetch traffic to my website.
Thanks for the same.
https://www.hamptonturfandtree.com/