Tesla Leaks Uncover Safety Hazards, Data Risks, and Harsh Conditions at Gigafactories

A whistleblower’s release of over 23,000 internal Tesla documents has exposed significant lapses in data security, workplace safety, and autopilot performance, raising questions about the electric vehicle pioneer’s operations under Elon Musk’s leadership. This revelation stems from an investigation by German journalists Sönke Iwersen y Michael Verfürden, detailed in their book The Tesla Files, as reported by The Sunday Times.

Data Security Failures Expose Customer and Employee Information

Tesla’s internal systems allowed unrestricted access to sensitive data, enabling any employee to download vast amounts of personal information. The leak began when an anonymous source contacted Handelsblatt on November 4, 2022, providing files that included personal details of 5,000 laid-off workers, along with names, email addresses, birth dates, and social security numbers of 73,000 employees. Another file listed salaries, and one was titled “Worst things we are doing to our customers.”

This vulnerability persisted despite prior warnings. Musk had alerted staff to be “extremely vigilant” after a 2018 leak described as “quite extensive and damaging.” Yet, the files remained accessible.

Iwersen questions, “How is it possible that a company like this and a guy [Musk] who pitches himself as a super-tech pioneer who knows all about data and how important data is would let that happen?”

Verfürden adds, “We still don’t know why the data was available for everyone — if it was just sloppiness or if it was intentional, in order to be faster.”

Such exposure could enable identity theft, as the data provided everything a malicious actor needed. In the European Union, this approach might violate laws, with Dutch authorities leading an ongoing multinational investigation that has yet to conclude after more than two years.

For EV owners, this raises concerns about how Tesla handles vehicle data, including location tracking and usage patterns, which could be similarly at risk. Building on that, the leak’s scale—over 100 gigabytes of spreadsheets, videos, and slideshows—highlights a systemic issue in a company valued at over a trillion dollars, where speed in operations appears to override basic protections.

The journalists verified the authenticity through cross-checks and by contacting additional sources using the leaked personal information. This turned dozens of Tesla employees into new whistleblowers, expanding the investigation’s scope. The casual data management contrasts sharply with Tesla’s image as a tech leader, potentially eroding trust among enthusiasts who rely on the company’s connected features for navigation and over-the-air updates.

Intense Working Conditions Strain Employees and Operations

Tesla’s gigafactories operate under extreme pressure, fostering a high-turnover environment that impacts production quality. The files revealed an annual staff churn rate of 30 to 40 percent, far exceeding rivals, with 70 percent of employees replaced in 2018 alone. Management viewed departures as weeding out the unfit, aligning with Musk’s “ultra-hardcore” work ethic.

Employees recited “the Algorithm,” a set of commandments including “Comradery is dangerous. It makes it hard for people to challenge each other’s work. There is a tendency to not want to throw a colleague under the bus. That needs to be avoided.” Stories circulated of workers wading through human waste after a sewage pipe burst at the Fremont factory. Musk likened manufacturing to “production hell,” comparing it to the eighth circle in Dante’s Inferno.

Surveillance was pervasive. Tesla purchased 31,000 licenses for Code42 spyware in six months, installing it on devices like the whistleblower’s laptop. The company hired former CIA and FBI officers to investigate deviations. One German sales rep described the atmosphere as “like a cult. A totally crazy world.” A worker at the Grünheide gigafactory near Berlin called it “a mix between Henry Ford and Scientology.”

At Grünheide, conflicts with trade unions intensified. Staff faced erratic shifts between nights and days, leading to exhaustion. Supervisors suspected sabotage, such as when the plant manager accused workers of stealing 65,000 coffee mugs last summer. Musk responded on X, joking that the company was being “mugged.” Tesla sent inspectors to sick workers’ homes and docked pay for those not disclosing medical details to the company. Musk tweeted, “This sounds crazy. Looking into it.”

Rewards were minimal, like red company-branded socks for Christmas or a quiz prize of a Cybertruck test drive, which broke down twice on the track. This environment, while motivating some, crushed others in a “climate of fear and mistrust.” For EV enthusiasts, these conditions suggest potential inconsistencies in vehicle assembly, as fatigued workers and high turnover could affect build quality in models like the Model 3 or Cybertruck.

Economically, the approach supports rapid scaling—Tesla now has over three million vehicles on roads, valued more than major automakers combined. Musk’s $127 billion stock holding equates to the GDP of Ecuador or Kenya (approximately $127 billion USD). However, the human cost questions sustainability, especially as European consumers have recently shifted away from the brand, contributing to a dip in share price after an initial doubling post-leak.

Autopilot and Vehicle Safety Issues Highlight Ongoing Risks

Tesla’s autopilot technology has faced scrutiny, with the files documenting over 4,000 customer complaints about inappropriate braking and acceleration from 2015 to 2022. Some internal staff avoided using it due to its unpredictability. Musk promised a “fully self-driving” system in 2013, aiming for 20 million robotaxis to eliminate accidents. A 2016 video showed a vehicle navigating autonomously, but reality lagged.

In Europe, “fully self-driving” remains illegal, though “enhanced driver assistance” for parking and speed control is available. German courts deemed these tools “indisputably unusable” and a “significant hazard in urban environments to the driver and surrounding traffic.” Fatal incidents underscored design flaws.

In one Brandenburg crash, two 18-year-olds burned to death in a Tesla after it hit a tree; firefighters couldn’t access them because door handles, retracted on Musk’s aesthetic insistence, wouldn’t release. The ADAC advises carrying an emergency window-breaking hammer.

Another case involved a Model S crashing near the Monte Ceneri tunnel in Switzerland, flipping multiple times and landing over 230 feet (70 meters) away. Bystanders and firefighters couldn’t open doors, watching as flames engulfed the car. Bereaved relatives sought crash data from the journalists.

Tesla’s policy limited information sharing, instructing staff to provide details “VERBALLY” to customers. In the US, post-Trump election, accidents were reclassified, exempting 12 percent from reporting. Musk argues against fixating on autopilot-related deaths, noting 1.3 million annual global road fatalities. He views critics as “killing people” by hindering a system that could end accidents.

This philosophy draws from “longtermism,” prioritizing cosmic-scale human survival.

Verfürden counters, “We think it’s crucial to report just how much of a black box Tesla remains when it comes to crash data, despite Musk’s own pledge to immediately disclose any critical crash data that affects public safety.”

For EV owners, these revelations prompt reevaluation of autopilot reliance. While Tesla pushes boundaries—saving the company from bankruptcy with a $465 million US Department of Energy in 2010 and surviving 2018 short-selling—the safety gaps pose real dangers. Operational implications include advising manual overrides in complex scenarios, and regulatory shifts, like EU probes, could mandate enhancements or restrictions, affecting features in models sold worldwide.

Regulatory and Ethical Implications for the EV Industry

The leaks challenge Tesla’s opacity, despite its growth from a 2003 startup by Martin Eberhard y Marc Tarpenning, with Musk investing $6.4 million in 2004. He became CEO in 2008, shifting focus to mainstream EVs. Gigafactories in Nevada, New York, Brandenburg (Germany), Shanghai, Texas, and Fremont employ over 100,000, but NDAs start at interviews.

Whistleblower Lukasz Krupski, a former technician in Norway, gathered the data after raising concerns about defects, safety, and sexism, only to face spyware and firing. He earned Musk’s thanks for averting a fire at a car show but took the openness culture literally.

Journalists faced Musk’s silence, with responses limited to legal letters. Supporters like Naomi Seibt attacked Iwersen online. Yet, the reporting aims for balance.

Verfürden says, “We want to be fair and present the full picture. It’s unfortunate they’ve never acknowledged what actually happened.”

Iwersen theorizes Musk avoids commenting to minimize attention. The book notes no historical precedent for Musk’s influence, supporting Trump with $288 million (£220 million, approximately $288 million USD) in donations and X support, then leading the Department of Government Efficiency to cut $2 trillion from the budget.

For EV enthusiasts, this intertwines corporate ethics with product trust. Tesla’s mission inspires, but the leaks reveal trade-offs in safety and privacy. Iwersen and Verfürden watched Musk’s political rise in “disbelief,” writing,

“However far we look back, we find no precedent for what’s unfolding. Rockefeller, Ford, Morgan, Walton, the Koch brothers — all shaped politics in their time. But none of them ever installed a president. And then governed alongside him.”

Ultimately, the disclosures inform choices without dictating them.

Verfürden concludes, “We’re just trying to provide actual information. We do feel like what you get from Mr Musk on X is not the full picture. And I think when you read the book, you have better information and you can decide for yourself.”

These findings emphasize the need in the growing EV market, where innovation must not compromise accountability. As Tesla navigates post-leak challenges, including share fluctuations and consumer shifts, the industry may see tighter oversight, benefiting safer, more transparent electric mobility.

Photos courtesy of Tesla