An article ran in the Star Tribune today about the Kelsey Smith Act, a bill being presented in the MN legislature that would require phone companies to triangulate and disclose the location of a cell phone whenever the police ask for it. No court order or subpoena needed.
It’s being billed as a way to find kidnapping victims. And indeed, triangulating cell signals is an important tool for finding lost people—that’s how James Kim’s family was found. But no court oversight whatsoever? Making it possible for the police to get the whereabouts of any cell phone owner, regardless of whether or not there is a real emergency? Creepy!
What’s so bizarre isn’t that people are willing to hand over that kind of authority to the cops, or don’t think through the privacy implications of their proposals. It’s that discussion of the privacy implications of this bill is nowhere to be found in the article. There’s just no mention. It’s presented as this common-sense bill that will save children. Are privacy advocates so few and far between that the writer completely failed to think of the civil liberties angle of the story? Or was it edited out?
This bill allows law enforcment to find the location of an electronic device without a warrant. IT does NOT allow release of personal information such as name, Date of birth, Social Security number, call information, text information or any other personal information. It is simply a way of locating a phone in the event it has been determined by law enforcement that a legitimate life or death situation exists for the person who was last known to have possession of that phone.
It works much like E911. If you make a call from your home land line phone to the police the name of the person who has that phone, the address (physical location of that phone) and the phone number of that phone are displayed for a dispatcher. You give up that bit of privacy when you call the police, and for that matter with caller ID service.
This bill can only be used when it has been determined through a legitimate police investigation by competent professionals that the person last in possession of the phone is in danger of serious bodily harm or death and is not able to make a 911 call.
This adds an extra layer of protection for those that are unable to help themselves such as an abduction victim or even an Alzheimer’s patient who has wandered off and is lost.
Current Federal law allows cell phone providers to provide this information voluntarily but does not require it, and there are many, many instances of cell providers refusing to do so at the cost of a life. This law mandates release of the information and offers protection to the cell phone companies if they follow the law in good faith.
The text of the bill is located here. The phone companies must turn the location information over “upon request of an investigative or law enforcement officer” (1.18). There is nothing in the text of the bill that restricts under what circumstances companies have to turn this information over or when police officers can ask for it.
The intent of the bill may be to enable finding lost children or vulnerable adults, but nothing in the bill stops the police from requesting the location information for anyone else–suspects, witnesses of interest, a cop’s ex-wife, whoever. It isn’t restricted to emergencies in the slightest.