On the day of the leak I read that the whistleblower leak was about safety, but all of these newer articles (e.g. the one you linked) focus way more about priva

On the day of the leak I read that the whistleblower leak was about safety, but all of these newer articles (e.g. the one you linked) focus way more about privacy/GDPR. Like, the opening sentence begins with how Tesla didn't adequately protect personal data and the conclusion is about the size of GDPR fines. The wording in the article "[t]he breach would violate the GDPR" implies that the act of the whistleblower leaking the information IS directly the violation... I'm a fan of whistleblower protections, but if there isn't anything reasonably interpreted as illegal on the safety front, and he shared everyone's private information creating a violation of the law, then he should obviously face legal consequences without any extra protection whatsoever. I am struggling to even see what the whistleblower intention is really. He leaked a seven year period of drive assistance complaints and it was just 4,000 (this sounds like a surprisingly small amount of complaints for a layman like me). Was Tesla hiding this in court cases? Were they not following regulatory reporting requirements?