Chaffetz Reintroduces GPS Act to Prevent Cellphone Tracking
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, reintroduced legislation Thursday aimed at clarifying the legal rules concerning how citizens’ geolocation data can be used by companies and law enforcement agencies. The Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act (HR-1312) would require law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant based on probable cause in order to track an individual by using cellphone location data or a GPS device. The new GPS Act proposal contains no changes from the bill Chaffetz introduced last Congress, his spokesman confirmed Thursday. The legislation previously faced stiff opposition from law enforcement officials and failed to advance (CD May 18 p8).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
"The government and law enforcement should not be able to track somebody indefinitely without their knowledge or consent or without obtaining a warrant from a judge,” said Chaffetz in a news release. The bipartisan bill was sponsored by House Crime Subcommittee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member John Conyers, D-Mich. Chaffetz said a Senate companion bill will soon be introduced by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill.
The legislation would require federal bodies and law enforcement agencies to acquire warrants in order to intercept an individual’s geolocation information, and forbids courts from considering evidence based on geolocation information acquired without a warrant. The bill carves out situational exceptions for emergencies, threats to national security, organized crime conspiracies, and cases of theft or fraud. The GPS Act permits private companies to collect geolocation information in the “normal course of business” but they will only be allowed to share and sell customer data after acquiring consumer consent. The Cable Act and the Communications Act prohibit cable and phone companies from disclosing their customers’ locations, but the Electronic Communications Privacy Act permits wireless service providers and third-party applications to share customers’ location information without user consent.
The American Civil Liberties Union heaped praise on the bill, which it said would better define the rules regarding cellphone tracking. “Cell phones are also portable tracking devices, and the law needs to catch up with technology to protect Americans from the indiscriminant [sic] use of this type of invasive surveillance,” said Chris Calabrese, ACLU legislative counsel, in a news release. “Innocent people shouldn’t have to sacrifice their privacy in order to have a cell phone,” he said. The ACLU noted that law enforcement officers are currently using data retained by wireless carriers about their subscribers’ location data each time their cellphones register their position with cell towers.
Computer and Communications Industry Association President Ed Black also welcomed the legislation’s reintroduction, according to a separate news release. “As the mobile technology industry grows, it’s time to update the law so that consumer protections keep up,” said Black. “CCIA appreciates the introduction of the GPS Act so that companies are not put in the awkward position of having to turn over customer data to the government without a warrant.”
The Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA) criticized the bill as unnecessary, in an email statement Thursday. “We recognize that the law needs to keep pace with new technology, but criminals are exploiting the very same technology that Rep. Chaffetz seeks to restrict law enforcement’s access to,” said FLEOA President J. Adler. “The GPS Act fails to recognize that there is an Inspector General that is authorized to investigate any misconduct or unauthorized access to information,” he said. “The legislation worries about a big brother that has long since left the federal government for the better paying cookie factory, a/k/a, the private sector.”