The head of intelligence in Germany’s Thuringia region, Kramer, recently made a statement suggesting that connected vehicles like those from Tesla could be exploited by the United States for surveillance purposes in Germany. His reasoning is straightforward: modern cars are equipped with video recording, GPS tracking, and data transmission capabilities back to manufacturer servers. Should such data fall into the hands of U.S. authorities, the layouts and operational patterns of sensitive locations—such as military bases, government buildings, and police stations—could be fully exposed.
The context behind this concern is that the German military has already decided to prohibit all connected vehicles from entering sensitive areas within military installations, regardless of brand. Kramer believes this measure is insufficient and recommends extending similar restrictions to government buildings and intelligence agency premises. He also cautioned civil servants against discussing classified information while inside connected vehicles.
Notably, Kramer remarked that even among friends, one should not assume mutual non-surveillance—a comment that carries subtle weight. Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO, maintains close ties with Donald Trump, while German automakers face mounting pressure from both U.S. tariffs and competition from Chinese electric vehicle manufacturers. In this political climate, singling out Tesla carries an undercurrent of strategic implication. Nonetheless, Germany’s Federal Office for Information Security acknowledged there is currently no evidence that such data has been used for espionage activities. The core issue, they emphasize, lies in consumers’ lack of awareness about what data their vehicles collect, where it goes, and how long it is retained. A member of parliament further mentioned BYD, labeling Chinese-made vehicles as “black boxes” as well.
In my view, this issue appears on the surface to be a matter of technical security, but at its root lies a question of trust politics.
From a technical standpoint, Kramer’s concerns are not unfounded. Modern smart vehicles function essentially as rolling smartphones—equipped with cameras, radar systems, GPS, microphones, and constant data transmission features, often enabled by default upon manufacture. The critical problem is that consumers remain largely ignorant about who collects data, what exactly is collected, how long it is stored, and to whom it is shared. This is not an isolated issue with Tesla, but a systemic challenge across the entire automotive industry. The German military’s blanket restriction on all connected vehicles reflects an understanding that this is a structural vulnerability, not a targeted critique of any single brand.
Yet when Kramer shifts focus specifically toward Tesla, the implications become harder to ignore. Tesla is the only major American automaker with a significant production facility in Germany, and Musk’s alignment with Trump adds geopolitical sensitivity. At a time when Germany’s automotive sector is being squeezed by U.S. trade policies and rising competition from Chinese EVs, the intelligence chief’s assertion that even allies may surveil each other reads less like a technical warning and more like a calculated political signal—one that simultaneously pressures U.S. interests while offering a narrative of national security to justify protectionism for domestic industry.
Even more revealing is the parliamentary reference to BYD. By lumping Tesla and Chinese vehicles together under the label of “black boxes,” European policymakers reveal a dual anxiety: fear not only of transatlantic allies but also of rising Asian competitors. Yet despite these concerns, there remains no credible evidence that data from these vehicles has been used for espionage. The real issue is not which country’s car poses greater risk, but rather the absence of transparent, standardized governance over data collection and transmission across all connected vehicles. Recommendations such as restricting civil servants from discussing classified matters in vehicles or banning connected cars from sensitive zones appear to be short-term fixes. Without clear, enforceable, and auditable rules governing data practices—applicable uniformly to all manufacturers—any restrictions today will be circumvented tomorrow by simply switching to another model.
Ultimately, this episode underscores Europe’s dilemma in digital sovereignty: technologically dependent on both China and the United States, yet insecure about either side’s intentions, while simultaneously needing to protect its own industrial base. It is easy to pin blame on a specific brand, but the real challenge lies in establishing a fair, transparent, and universally applicable framework for data governance across the entire automotive industry.
Original article: toutiao.com/article/1881811750328396/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.