Your EV Battery Is Spying on You: MIT Research Uncovers Hidden Location & Privacy Threats
Related: Your Car Could Be Held for Ransom: The Rise of Automotive Cyber Attacks
MIT researchers demonstrated how a seemingly harmless detail - battery power consumption - could expose sensitive data. They monitored electricity draw from batteries and linked specific consumption patterns to routes, speeds, and even driver identities. Turns out, every driver's habits create unique "fingerprints" in power consumption. It's as if your battery is dropping digital breadcrumbs wherever you go.
This revelation isn't trivial. Unlike your smartphone, you can't simply install antivirus software on your car battery. And unlike a Tesla's touchscreen, battery data isn't password-protected. Anyone with basic hacking tools could, in theory, use this data to pinpoint your commute, figure out where you live, or even track your kids' school drop-offs.
Related: Bricked in 14 Minutes: The Hidden Risk That Could Kill Your Tesla
According to the researchers, primarily, skilled hackers pose the greatest threat. They can intercept battery data to track your driving patterns, habits, and locations, potentially leading to identity theft, stalking, or burglary. Additionally, government agencies or law enforcement (if that behavior worries you) might exploit battery data for surveillance or tracking purposes, often without explicit consent.
Automakers also collect detailed battery performance data, but vulnerabilities mean unauthorized third parties could access this data, either maliciously or commercially. As vehicles become increasingly connected to mobile apps and Wi-Fi networks, these connections present another potential vulnerability point for data interception.
Hackers primarily use indirect methods known as side-channel attacks. These attacks analyze subtle patterns in battery power consumption, allowing them to decipher specific routes and driving habits. Public charging stations or compromised home chargers provide attack vectors and can log your battery's energy patterns, potentially providing a way for unauthorized monitoring.
Let's put that in context. Picture a typical day running errands. Researchers found your battery's unique consumption pattern could reveal that you hit Starbucks at 7:15 am, clock 15 freeway miles at 75 mph, and spend precisely 42 minutes parked at Target. And pick up your kids at their playgroup at 3.20pm, Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. That's creepy if you ask me.
And how about longer trips? On road trips over 150 miles, distinct battery signatures pinpointed exact rest stops, hotel stays, and even recreational detours with astonishing precision. For privacy-conscious drivers, put mildly this raises some serious red flags.
As for usability, modern EVs like Tesla's Model Y with a 75 kWh battery or Ford's Mustang Mach-E with 91 kWh packs aren't designed with this vulnerability in mind. Both vehicles boast impressive specs - Model Y hits 0-60 mph in 4.8 seconds; Mach-E manages it in about 4.9 seconds. But, just like with public charger hacks and ransomware, neither maker – indeed no EV maker – yet addresses how battery power data could compromise your privacy.
Cabin comforts and slick infotainment systems won't help here. Sure, the Mustang Mach-E's plush interior makes highway cruising effortless, and Tesla's minimalist cockpit is pretty and impresses tech fans, but none of that protects your privacy.
Unfortunately, this isn't some theoretical scenario - it's real research from credible experts, revealing a vulnerability automakers haven't yet addressed. Should you toss your Model Y or Mach-E out of panic? No, but be aware.
The MIT study makes it clear: battery data isn't just about mileage - it's a privacy leak waiting to happen. And, of course, this is only a matter for those who care about their privacy and don't like to be hacked, tracked, or spied on.
Enthusiasts love EVs for their acceleration and tech-packed cabins. But this privacy flaw demands serious attention. Carmakers need to step up their game and close this loophole. Fast. Until then, remember: Big Brother might not be watching, but your battery just might be telling him where you are.
Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
11 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Shareholders sue Tesla and Elon Musk on heels of deadly self-driving verdict, alleging its robotaxi violates traffic laws
A group of Tesla shareholders sued the company and CEO Elon Musk, alleging they weren't forthcoming about problems with its robotaxi. The proposed class action lawsuit, filed in a Texas federal court Monday, says Tesla misled investors, failed to disclose problems with its long-in-the-works robotaxi service, and "overstated the effectiveness of its autonomous driving technology." "There was thus a significant risk that the Company's autonomous driving vehicles, including the Robotaxi, would operate dangerously and/or in violation of traffic laws," the lawsuit said. Tesla debuted a test of its robotaxis — fully autonomous cars available through a ride-hailing service — on June 22. There were some hiccups. According to videos posted by influencers and Tesla shareholder who participated in the test in Austin, some cars drove in the wrong lane, exceeded the speed limit, braked at inappropriate times, and had trouble parking without intervention. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said it was looking into the irregularities depicted in videos. Shareholders appeared unhappy: Tesla's stock price fell by 6.05% over June 24 and June 25, following reports about the videos and the NHTSA announcement, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit also points to the August 1 jury verdict in a Florida federal court over a deadly crash involving a Tesla on "Autopilot" mode. The jury awarded the family of Naibel Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo, a combined $329 million in total damages. It found Tesla responsible for $242.5 million in combined punitive and compensatory damages in the case. Miguel Custodio, a personal injury attorney at Custodio & Dubey LLP, said that the jury verdict put the automated driving industry "on notice." "If their tech is not 1,000% safe or if the marketing is misleading in any way, there is serious legal and financial exposure," he told Business Insider before news of the shareholder lawsuit. "Everyone welcomes new technology, but not if it is at the cost of human lives." In addition to naming Tesla and Musk as defendants, the Monday shareholder lawsuit was also filed against Zachary Kirkhorn, who served as CFO until 2023, and the current CFO Vaibhav Taneja.
Forbes
11 minutes ago
- Forbes
Why Verifiable AI Is Manufacturing's Next Trillion-Dollar Advantage
The industrial sector's AI future isn't about automation—it's about accountability. As manufacturers face a widening skills gap and rising regulatory scrutiny, the most valuable asset isn't a smarter machine—it's a machine that can prove its decisions. The $1 Trillion Accountability Gap Manufacturing is facing a dual crisis. According to Deloitte and The Manufacturing Institute's 2023 workforce analysis, 2.1 million manufacturing jobs could go unfilled by 2030. Deloitte estimates this talent gap could cost the U.S. manufacturing sector up to $1 trillion in lost output by 2030. As we rely on AI to fill this growing talent void, we're deploying algorithmic solutions for predictive maintenance and quality control—then struggling to document these systems' decision-making for regulators and stakeholders. The NIST AI Risk Management Framework explicitly warns that without systematic traceability, companies risk regulatory penalties and eroded trust. This isn't theoretical—in late 2023, Tesla recalled 2 million vehicles due to Autopilot's insufficient driver-engagement controls, highlighting the critical need for verifiable human-AI supervision in safety-critical systems. Verification Systems in Industrial Practice Leading manufacturers are implementing what analysts call "forensic-grade AI documentation"—systems that don't just generate recommendations but create detailed audit trails of their reasoning processes. Some manufacturers are beginning to use LLMs to draft repair procedures, but only after human-plus-AI validation layers flag unverified recommendations. Aerospace leaders are piloting AI systems that guide technicians through complex procedures while logging every query with timestamps and operator identification—creating digital chains of custody for maintenance decisions. Electronics manufacturers are exploring LLMs to train workers across languages, with systems designed to validate outputs against IPC-610 and other quality standards before deployment. When Hexagon's Nexus platform creates digital threads linking AI quality checks to individual machine calibration records, it enables systematic process improvement—reducing defects and accelerating root-cause analysis. Such comprehensive documentation creates competitive advantages beyond mere compliance. The FDA has authorized more than 1,000 AI-enabled devices through established premarket pathways, with comprehensive documentation requirements that are accelerating regulatory submissions for companies with robust audit trails. The Workforce Verification Frontier As AI systems become more sophisticated, human operators need higher-level skills to effectively supervise algorithmic decisions. This creates an urgent need for verifiable real-time workforce reskilling that can keep pace with rapidly evolving AI capabilities. Progressive manufacturers are treating this challenge as an opportunity to build comprehensive workforce development ecosystems that leverage LLM-based learning platforms. These systems don't just deliver training content—they create detailed documentation of skill acquisition and competency validation. Siemens' AI coaching platforms log every trainee interaction, creating O SHA-compliant skill records while significantly reducing certification times. The system doesn't just train workers—it documents their competency development in formats that satisfy regulatory requirements and support career advancement. Robotic automation leaders are testing systems where workers must verbally confirm understanding of AI-generated instructions—creating accountability chains that reduce procedural errors. These systems transform compliance documentation from bureaucratic overhead into valuable operational intelligence. Consider a junior technician at a medical device plant. She's trained on a new AI-assisted calibration system. When a defect is later found, the investigation doesn't start with blame—it starts with the audit trail. The logs show she followed every AI recommendation, used the correct tools, and documented each step. The issue was upstream—a faulty sensor the AI couldn't detect. Because the system verifies both the AI and the human, she's not punished. She's praised for following protocol. And the company fixes the real problem: the sensor. This is the power of verifiable AI: it doesn't replace trust. It scales it. Emerging platforms like Answerr, originally built for academic verification, are now being adapted for manufacturing to log human-AI workflows, verify upskilling progress, and maintain compliance-ready audit trails. These platforms are helping define the new AI passport—verifying not just what was done, but how it was learned, who approved it, and how it can be traced. This convergence of educational technology and industrial training represents a critical evolution in workforce development. Building Verification Infrastructure By documenting both AI decisions and worker interactions, these systems create a seamless bridge between workforce reskilling and operational accountability. Manufacturing leaders should approach AI verification with the same systematic rigor they apply to other quality management initiatives. What Belongs in a Manufacturing AI Verification Stack? Companies should establish clear documentation standards, train personnel on verification protocols, and integrate audit trail requirements into vendor selection criteria. Siemens' Teamcenter requires dual signatures—human plus AI—for critical process modifications, while GE Vernova's systems are designed to flag uncertain AI predictions for mandatory human review. The Business Case for Verification The financial implications extend beyond compliance costs. In regulated industries, AI verification systems have reduced false positives in inspections by up to 90%—potentially avoiding hundreds of millions in recall costs. Early adopters of AI governance frameworks like NIST AI RMF report lower risk profiles, with some insurers offering premium reductions for transparent, auditable AI systems. These examples demonstrate that verification infrastructure generates positive returns through risk reduction, operational efficiency, and accelerated regulatory approval. Companies that view AI documentation as merely a compliance burden miss the larger strategic opportunity. Implementation Strategy To build a robust verification framework, leaders should: Prioritize vendor-agnostic logging systems that aggregate data from multiple AI tools into centralized compliance dashboards, preventing isolated documentation silos. Implement dual-control systems similar to pharmaceutical manufacturing, where human sign-off is required for AI-driven batch changes. Focus on explainability by requiring AI transparency tools from vendors to create systematic documentation of reasoning processes, not just outputs. Audit for continuous learning to ensure verification frameworks support ongoing evolution as AI systems and regulations change without disrupting operations. Manufacturing's next competitive advantage isn't AI that works—it's AI that proves it works. From validated repair procedures to timestamped technician guidance, industry leaders are building moats of verifiable trust. Emerging platforms like Answerr are helping define the new AI passport—verifying not just what was done, but how it was learned, who approved it, and how it can be traced. By Q3 2026, audit your AI tools for traceability compliance to build a defensible competitive position. The question isn't whether your factory needs AI—it's whether your AI can survive a customer audit. Build verification infrastructure now, or watch competitors who did dominate your market. Disclosure: The author is Chief Business Officer at Answer Labs, which builds AI governance tools for education, and a Venture Partner at Antler. He previously conducted research at both Stanford and MIT and holds a PhD in science and technology studies with a focus on AI.
New York Times
13 minutes ago
- New York Times
At the Tesla Diner, the Future Looks Mid
When Elon Musk announced that he was building the Tesla Diner in 2018, it was sold as a wholesome, Americana-flavored vision of the future in Hollywood — electric cars charging around a communal big screen while drivers fueled up on reimagined fast food. Since then, Mr. Musk, the world's richest man and Tesla's chief executive, acquired Twitter in a chaotic takeover, donated millions to President Trump's 2024 campaign, and as the former head of DOGE set out to slash agencies across the federal government. By the time Tesla Diner opened in July, Tesla had reported declining revenue and the Los Angeles restaurant looked more like a distraction for a brand in crisis — a viral marketing exercise on a half-acre lot where you could pretend the Cybertruck wasn't a flop. From the vantage point of a drone camera, two stories high, the Tesla Diner might still appear as a retro-futuristic spaceship gleaming on Santa Monica Boulevard, but from the point of view of a person, down here on the ground (hello!), it's something else. On the weekends, you're just as likely to see protesters waving images portraying Mr. Musk as a Nazi, as to see fans livestreaming their shuffle through the line. Plenty of people never leave their cars, ordering food delivered to them by servers while they charge at one of 80 reserved spots. As I waited to get in, a woman on a skateboard whooshed by shouting, 'Losers!' at the line while people carried out bags of Tesla merch — T-shirts, baseball caps, gummy candies and robot action figures. I saw several Cybertrucks parked below the big screens (which were, at that moment, playing an ad for Cybertrucks). The food itself looked like merch, too: waffles embossed with the Tesla app's lightning-bolt icon and dusted with powdered sugar, like the Mickey waffles at Disney parks. Burgers and sandwiches packed in vented Cybertruck-shaped boxes, at least until the kitchen ran out of them. For the culinary portion of the project, Tesla hired the restaurateur Bill Chait, known for République and Tartine, along with Eric Greenspan, the chef of the Foundry on Melrose who has lately been developing ghost-kitchen concepts, including MrBeast Burger. Mr. Greenspan also formulated a Kraft single dupe at his company New School American, and that thin, sticky rendition of American cheese, made from a base of aged Cheddar, shows up all over the Tesla menu. In its first hectic days of business, most of the menu items advertised across platforms weren't available. When I went, there were no salads, no veggie patties, no club sandwiches, no avocado toasts, no beef tallow-fried hash browns, no biscuits, no pies, no cookies, no soft serve, no milkshakes, no 'epic bacon.' But agreeable chicken tenders were sandwiched between tough waffles, slathered with a very sweet mayonnaise. And a generic beef chili was so finely ground under its puddle of cheese, the fact that it was Wagyu seemed irrelevant. The hot dog — an all-beef Snap-o-Razzo — was withered by the time I made it to an empty chair in the full sun of the second-story balcony. (The shade sails had all been removed following an accident.) Tesla engineers built a proprietary tool to flatten patties for the smash burgers with crisp browned edges, held together with caramelized onions and cheese, which seemed to be on most tables. It lent the dish a superficial whiff of innovation, but the burger didn't stand out in any meaningful way. Tesla, which still promises a vision of the future to its devoted fans, fails to deliver on one that isn't bland and familiar. If you look past the design by Stantec, this is a high-volume restaurant with a menu of meat-focused fast food that diners order on touch screens, then pick up at the counter. It's an unremarkable model that chains rolled out years ago. In marketing materials, and on its opening day, Tesla had teased a robot making popcorn on the second floor, but there were no robots in operation when I stopped in, other than the one I saw outside — a comedian dressed up as the Tesla Bot Optimus, smoking a cigarette, who said he planned to make funny videos until he 'got kicked out.' I'd also read on Tesla's website that this was a 24-hour restaurant, but as a worker explained to me, it was 24 hours only for Tesla drivers who ordered on the app, from their cars. For everyone else, doors opened at 6 a.m. and closed at midnight. (Which might explain why some diners had reported waiting several hours to get inside — did no one tell them?) Tesla Diner has been sold as a charging station, a drive-in and 'a classic American diner,' but by the time I left, I wondered if whoever wrote that copy had been to a diner. A diner is a kind of north star — its doors open, its menu constant. For now, you never know how long it will take to get into the Tesla Diner or, when you do, what may or may not be available. Last week, after a post about the restaurant's 'epic bacon' went viral on X, disparaging the abyss between its artificially glossy image on the touch screen and its actual, grimmer presentation in real life, the bacon disappeared from the menu. What bacon? It was as if it never existed. None of this seemed to deter the people in line. On my way out, I squeezed into an elevator with my colleagues, some international tourists and a few locals who'd eaten at Tesla Diner three times in one week and were already planning to come back. I couldn't make sense of it. 'We don't order anything except for the burgers now,' one of them told me. 'Everything else is just so bad.' Follow New York Times Cooking on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and Pinterest. Get regular updates from New York Times Cooking, with recipe suggestions, cooking tips and shopping advice.
