Geolocation Privacy Bill Will Protect People Without Harming Businesses, Chaffetz Says
Mobile device users need to have their geolocation information protected from law enforcement officials as well as other individuals, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said during a mobile privacy event hosted by the Advisory Committee to the Congressional Internet Caucus on Thursday. Chaffetz discussed his bill -- also introduced in the Senate by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. -- which would require law enforcement officials to obtain a warrant based on probable cause before they can access geolocation information. “It’s not just about limiting law enforcement in trying to get them to have probable cause to be able to track somebody,” he said. “It’s also to make sure that an individual can’t surreptitiously follow somebody else across state lines."
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
The bill has been crafted so it doesn’t harm businesses because it allows users to consent to their data being collected, Chaffetz said. “Let’s say Google has something that’s going to make your life better and easier, and you grant permission … [that’s] no problem,” he said. In addition to the bill’s public safety exceptions, the exception for users that have given consent protects the innovative businesses that use that data, he said. “I think the marketplace will help sort out who’s doing what and how, what’s good and what’s bad."
A geolocation privacy law should create consistency without relying on a “one-size-fits-all” standard, said Jason Weinstein, former deputy assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice. Currently, different courts require law enforcement officials to meet varying standards when they're seeking geolocation information during the course of an investigation, he said. “There’s no justice when the law is applied differently to different people.” Weinstein called for clearer rules, which would be better for users, providers and law enforcement agencies. Those rules are “best provided by Congress and not the courts,” he said.
There should be a continuum of standards for gaining access to location information based on the specificity of that information, Weinstein continued. Like with other kinds of information, the system should be set up so that “the greater the intrusion, the greater the burden of proof.” Weinstein argued that the location information that comes from cell towers is more general than location information derived from a device’s GPS and should require a lower burden of proof. Requiring a warrant based on probable cause will prevent law enforcement officials from being able to gather the necessary evidence to have probable cause, he continued. “The evidence won’t be there to get law enforcement over that hurdle,” he said. “Cases can’t get built” and crimes can’t be solved if law enforcement can’t access cell tower information, which is “a critical building block in some cases."
Geolocation privacy bills should go beyond setting standards for accessing the information and should establish data minimization standards for law enforcement agencies, said Stephanie Pell, former House Judiciary Committee counsel and currently principal at SKP Strategies. “We need to look at how law enforcement can appropriately minimize data” and report to Congress on how it accesses and uses geolocation information, she said. Though she disagreed with Weinstein on the differences between cell tower and device GPS location information, Pell echoed the sentiment that a law is needed to create consistency. “We all need clear rules,” she said, calling the legal landscape “extremely chaotic.”