A former federal safety adviser says the new Chinese-built Waymo robotaxis rolling onto Arizona streets could double as surveillance tools. Waymo robotaxi privacy risks became a live national story on October 28-29, 2026, when AZ Family (KTVK/KPHO) reported that Missy Cummings of George Mason University wants an independent investigation of the company’s Zeekr-built vans, which Waymo calls Ojai (some reports spell it OHI). Nobody has shown that a single rider has been spied on. The argument is about what could happen, and who gets to check.
Waymo, the self-driving subsidiary of Alphabet, rejects the premise. It says the vans arrive in the U.S. without connected-car technology, that it fits its own cameras, sensors and driving software at a facility in Mesa, and that it shares no rider identity data, telemetry or driving data with the automaker. This analysis walks through what is confirmed, what is not, and what the dispute means for hardware buyers, regulators and the robotaxi race that already includes Tesla’s much smaller Austin operation.
Don't miss new tech stories on Google
Add Tech Insider once in the Google app and our stories appear in your news suggestions.
What AZ Family Reported on Oct. 28-29
The core report ran under the headline asking whether China could spy through Waymo’s new Arizona robotaxis. Reporter Derek Staahl interviewed Cummings, an autonomous vehicle researcher at George Mason University and a former senior safety adviser at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on the station’s Generation AI program. Cummings called for a third-party look at the vehicles rather than a blanket ban.
Three facts anchor the story. First, the Ojai vans are built in China by Zeekr before Waymo adds its autonomous-driving technology in Arizona. Second, Waymo’s existing fleet includes Jaguar SUVs manufactured in Austria, so the Chinese-built van is a new sourcing path, not the whole fleet. Third, Waymo has ordered thousands of the Chinese-made vehicles. The exact order size is not confirmed in the reporting we reviewed.
The AZ Family piece also cites a research estimate from MoffettNathanson that Waymo is on pace to import about 5,000 Ojai vehicles this year, which would be more than its existing fleet. Treat that as an analyst projection, not a Waymo figure. Waymo has not confirmed it in the coverage we reviewed.
Waymo’s Defense: What the Company Says It Does
Waymo’s position rests on separation. The base vehicle comes from Zeekr, and the company says the sensing and decision-making layer comes from Waymo alone. According to the reports, Waymo says its vehicles go through “rigorous security testing” to protect trade secrets. It also says it does not share personally identifiable information about riders, vehicle telemetry or data collected by its automated-driving system with vehicle manufacturers.
The company draws a second line around its software. Waymo says it does not license its software to Zeekr, does not share source code, and does not allow transfer of its algorithms or AI models. It adds that Zeekr and other base-vehicle makers do not receive data collected from U.S. consumers.
Those are statements from the company, and they are specific. They are also unverified by any outside party. No independent security audit confirming or disproving them has been published, according to the material we reviewed. That gap is exactly where Cummings aims her criticism.
The Case Against: Cummings on Hidden Layers
Cummings did not hedge her opening line. “These cars are just inherent spying devices,” she told AZ Family. Her argument is structural. Any robotaxi collects continuous camera and sensor data about passengers, streets and surroundings, and a vehicle built abroad raises the question of what else sits inside the shell.
She questioned whether Waymo’s own technology is enough to wash out the risk. “Even if the shell of the car is Chinese, different technologies can be layered in,” she said. Other coverage of the same interview quotes her saying, “It’s very possible that the Chinese have layered in other sensors that are recording data and sending it back to China.” That statement is a possibility, not a finding. Cummings did not present evidence of such sensors, and no report we reviewed does.
On remedies she was measured. She said she is not a big fan of bans because they can throw out the good with the bad, and she wants “an independent third party, probably a government agency, to go in and take a look and see if that is indeed true.” In plain terms, she wants Waymo’s promises tested, not assumed.
What a Robotaxi Actually Collects
A modern robotaxi carries cameras, radar and lidar to map its surroundings, plus microphones and in-cabin sensors on some designs. The AZ Family and related reports describe collection of passenger information, locations and what Cummings calls “patterns of life,” meaning repeated routes, stops and schedules that reveal who someone is and where they go.
She gave one national-security example. Vehicles driving near military installations might be able to gather information on traffic patterns or personnel movement. She also acknowledged that someone could in theory compromise a vehicle remotely and take control of it, but she rates that risk as small next to surveillance and privacy intrusions.
Why Location Data Is the Prize
A single trip record tells little. Thousands of trips across a metro area tell a great deal. Pickup clusters near government buildings, repeat late-night rides, and sensor sweeps along sensitive perimeters build a map that no single rider ever sees. That aggregate view is the scenario Cummings describes, and it explains why the debate centers on fleet-wide data flows rather than one passenger’s privacy.
Confirmed vs. Unconfirmed: A Scorecard
The story moves fast, and headlines blur the line between concern and proof. The table below separates the two using only what the reporting supports.
| Claim | Status | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Ojai vans are built in China by Zeekr | Reported as fact | AZ Family and related coverage |
| Waymo adds its driving tech in Arizona | Reported as fact | AZ Family (Mesa facility) |
| Waymo shares no rider PII, telemetry or driving data with automakers | Company claim | Waymo statements, no outside audit |
| Zeekr vehicles hold undisclosed sensors sending data to China | Unconfirmed | Cummings raised it as a possibility |
| Chinese-built Waymos have spied on riders | Unconfirmed | No evidence presented |
| Independent security audit completed | Unconfirmed | None published in reviewed sources |
| Congress has banned Chinese-built connected vehicles | Not law | Bill advanced in committee only |
The pattern is clear. Every operational fact about where the vans come from is established. Every claim about spying remains a hypothesis. The honest headline is a risk debate, not a breach.
Congress Moves on the Connected Vehicle Security Act
Washington is not waiting for an audit. AZ Family reports that a bipartisan bill from Sens. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) would ban vehicles built in China even when the self-driving systems are American. The Connected Vehicle Security Act of 2026 cleared the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously in July. It has not become law, and nothing in the reviewed reporting says when, or whether, it reaches a floor vote.
Separate from that bill, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security has published a connected-vehicle rule aimed at software and hardware tied to entities under Chinese or Russian jurisdiction. Whether it reaches Waymo’s vans depends on definitions, covered components and transaction structure, none of which the coverage resolves. Anyone claiming the rule already bans Ojai is ahead of the facts.
The same policy mood shows up in other tech files. Beijing is moving the other way on its own exports, as China’s draft AI export curbs covering 40 technologies show. Both capitals now treat advanced vehicle and AI technology as a security asset rather than a plain commodity.
Economics: Why Waymo Buys From China at All
The pressure to source from Zeekr is financial. AZ Family reports that even with steep tariffs on Chinese exports, some analysts estimate a completed Ojai costs Waymo roughly $100,000, against about $200,000 for the Jaguar vehicle. Those are analyst estimates, not Waymo disclosures. If they hold, the cheaper van halves the vehicle cost per robotaxi, which matters when a fleet is measured in thousands.
| Factor | Jaguar SUV | Zeekr-built Ojai |
|---|---|---|
| Built in | Austria | China (Zeekr) |
| Autonomy hardware added | By Waymo | By Waymo in Arizona (Mesa) |
| Estimated completed cost | About $200,000 | About $100,000 (analyst estimate, after tariffs) |
| Fleet role | Existing fleet | New arrivals, thousands ordered |
| Political exposure | Low | High, tied to pending legislation |
| Independent security audit | None reported | None reported |
Cummings noted that some support for a ban comes from “a strong lobby in America to keep the Chinese vehicles out just to promote the American automotive sector.” So the debate mixes two motives, security and industrial policy, and the two are hard to separate when a cost gap that wide is on the table.
Historical Context: The 2024 Port Crane Precedent
Cummings pointed to a case she says shows how this goes wrong. In 2024, U.S. investigators discovered cellular modems hidden inside Chinese-built cranes at American ports. The Coast Guard warned the devices could offer a route to disrupt operations remotely. Investigators did not establish that they had been used for espionage, which is the same gap now at issue with the vans: a capability found, intent unproven.
The lesson regulators drew was about inspection, not accusation. Hidden hardware surfaced because someone opened the equipment and looked. Cummings wants the same for robotaxis, which means teardown-level review of components, firmware and network behavior. That kind of check is routine in hardware security.
Who Should Audit: The Lincoln Lab Idea
Cummings argues that U.S. regulators lack the technical capacity to inspect advanced AI systems, and that the agencies who could do it are understaffed and underfunded. Her proposal is to hand the work to federally funded research and development centers such as MIT Lincoln Laboratory. She says they have security expertise and “the right people who are independent of both industry and the government.”
What a Credible Audit Would Cover
- A hardware teardown of every module the base vehicle ships with, including radios and modems.
- Network traffic capture to confirm nothing leaves the vehicle outside Waymo’s channels.
- Firmware review to check for components that Waymo’s stack does not control.
- Verification that vehicles reach the U.S. without connected-car functions, as Waymo says.
- A published summary so riders and lawmakers can read the result.
Waymo could invite such a review voluntarily. That would turn a contested company claim into a checked one, and it would cost the company little if its statements hold. The trade-off is disclosure of trade secrets, which Waymo says its security testing already protects.
Market Impact for Hardware and the Robotaxi Race
For hardware watchers, the story shows where robotaxi economics bend. Vehicle platforms are cheap and abundant in China. Autonomy stacks are the scarce asset. Waymo’s bet is that it can keep the scarce part clean while buying the cheap part abroad. If regulators decide the base vehicle itself is a risk, the fleet-cost advantage shrinks and the company either pays more per vehicle or waits.
Rivals face a different set of trade-offs. Tesla designs its own vehicle, and the Cybercab production line with 25 stations and 78% automation shows how much of the build it controls in-house. That vertical control carries its own political advantage in a fight about foreign components. By contrast, Waymo’s approach spreads risk across partners and leans on contracts and testing to close the gap.
Investors should note the timing. Alphabet’s parent-level numbers are already under scrutiny, as Alphabet’s 9% drop on negative free cash flow showed. A new compliance cost or a forced sourcing change at Waymo would land on a company already facing questions about spending. Nobody has reported such a change yet.
Data Governance Lessons From Other Breaches
Cummings’ broader point deserves attention. She said riders should worry about what happens to their data “regardless of who you think is recording it.” Her practical advice was blunt: never say anything in a robotaxi you would not be willing to see on the Internet. That framing moves the question from geography to governance.
Recent incidents back her up. Domestic systems leak too. The DHS Icepick leak of 41,000 records showed how single sign-on weaknesses expose staff data inside U.S. agencies. And the TiDB Cloud breach through a stolen service account lasting 28 days showed how a quiet credential problem can sit undetected for weeks. A robotaxi fleet’s cloud backend faces the same classes of risk regardless of where the van was welded together.
Five Predictions
These are analytical judgments, not reported facts.
- Pressure for an outside audit grows. With a bipartisan bill, a named expert and local TV coverage, Waymo will face repeated calls to submit to independent review. A voluntary review is the cheapest way out.
- The bill’s path stays uncertain. Committee approval is a first step. Floor time, House action and any carve-out for existing contracts will decide whether it becomes law.
- Waymo adds public detail on data handling. Expect more specific statements on what the Mesa integration removes or disables from the base van.
- Cost debate shifts to total ownership. If compliance costs rise, the $100,000 versus $200,000 gap will narrow in analyst models.
- Rivals market domestic control. Competitors that build or assemble vehicles at home will use the issue in pitches to cities and regulators.
What Riders Can Do Now
Riders cannot inspect a vehicle. They can control what they say and carry inside it. Treat the cabin as a semi-public space. Avoid discussing sensitive work, finances or personal matters. Review the ride-hailing app’s privacy settings and location permissions, and limit what the app tracks outside active trips. These are the same habits security teams recommend for any connected device, and they work no matter how the audit debate resolves.
For readers following the hardware side of this story, our hardware coverage hub tracks the chips, sensors and vehicles behind the autonomy race.
Frequently Asked Questions
Has Waymo been caught spying on riders with Chinese-built vehicles?
No. The reports describe a possible risk, not a confirmed incident. No source we reviewed shows that Zeekr vehicles contain undisclosed sensors that transmit data to China, or that Waymo rider data has reached Chinese entities.
Who builds the Waymo Ojai robotaxi?
Zeekr builds the base van in China. Waymo then adds its cameras, sensors and self-driving system in Arizona, according to AZ Family. Waymo’s existing Jaguar SUVs are made in Austria. Reports spell the new van Ojai and, in some cases, OHI, and the official spelling is not confirmed here.
What does Waymo say it does with rider data?
Waymo says it does not share rider personally identifiable information, vehicle telemetry or automated-driving data with vehicle manufacturers. It also says Zeekr and other base-vehicle makers do not receive data collected from U.S. consumers, and that it does not license software, share source code or transfer algorithms or AI models.
Is the Connected Vehicle Security Act of 2026 law?
No. AZ Family reports the bill from Sens. Moreno and Slotkin cleared the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously in July. It has not been enacted.
Does Missy Cummings want Chinese-built robotaxis banned?
Not outright. She said she is not generally a fan of bans and prefers stronger technical oversight, including independent inspection by research centers such as MIT Lincoln Laboratory, to decide which components present unacceptable risk.
How many Chinese-built vans is Waymo importing?
Waymo has ordered thousands, and the exact quantity is not confirmed. Research firm MoffettNathanson estimates about 5,000 Ojai imports this year, per AZ Family. That is an analyst estimate.
What should riders do about privacy in a robotaxi?
Cummings advises never saying anything in the vehicle that you would not accept seeing online. Limit app location permissions and review privacy settings before riding.
