User:Baygross/GPS ACT

Co-authored as a bipartisan bill by Oregon Senator Ron Wyden (D) and Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), the Geolocational Privacy and Surveillance Act (GPS Act) was introduced to the US Senate on June 15th, 2011. The bill works to set forth "a legal framework designed to give government agencies, commercial entities and private citizens clear guidelines for when and how geolocation information can be accessed and used." Advocates hope to address the controversy surrounding a number of recent incidents in which federal agents have attached GPS decives to suspect's vehicles without a warrant and to set a legal precedent for such tracking in the future.

One notable such incident in 2011 led to U.S. v. Jones, which is currently being reviewed by the Supreme Court. The GPS Act would supersede any judicial ruling which may come out of the case. Justice Antonin Scalia has even spoken out on the case, encouraging legislatures to create restraints on law enforcement officers.

Background

Current legislation surrounding the issue of tracking an individual's location has proven legally ambiguous and technically outdated. To date, primary precedent draws from the 1983 ruling of United States v. Knotts and the contentious Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. The court's decision in United States v. Knotts ruled that electronic 'beepers' could be fairly used to track a suspects vehicle without warrant. Justice Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion that the monitoring of such 'beeper' devices did not invade any individual's "legitimate expectations of privacy." As a person traveling on public streets is visible to the naked eye, the practice was thus upheld as neither a "search" nor a "seizure" under Fourth Amendment definitions.

In 2004, Antoine Jones was sentenced to life in prison for cocaine related charges. As part of the investigation, a GPS Tracking device was used to track his movements for four weeks. He appealed the case on the basis that the GPS tracking device on his car constituted an "unreasonable search" under the fourth amendment. The case was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court where it is currently under review (US v. Jones). The case has influenced much of the geolocation legislation currently being discussed including the GPS Act.

In September of 2011, the Obama Administration pointed to this two decade precedent as groundings in their request for warrantless GPS tracking for law enforcement officials. In October of the same year Roger L. Easton (the chief innovator behind modern GPS technology) testified before the Supreme Court on the issue, urging the court to renounce the Obama Administration's proposal.

In their counter-briefing to the court, the Justice Department has argued that an individual has "no reasonable expectation of privacy" in his or her movements around public streets, and that legislation requiring certain (to date ambiguous) standards for warrants would "severely impede" law enforcement officials in their work.

Contents

If passed, the GPS Act would require probable cause and an accompanying warrant before government agencies could obtain private geolocational information on an individual - either through a mobile device or by the placement of a tracking bug. Taking a strong stance on consumer rights, the bill would further forbid private businesses from sharing customer location data without explicit consent of the individual. The bill would cover real-time tracking data as well as previously acquired historical location data.

Exceptions

The bill has set forth certain exceptions under which the acquisition of private tracking data by private or public entities would not be unlawful.

• As a response to theft, and for the purpose of tracking stolen merchandise.
• As a personal safety net for children, as set forth by a parent or legal guardian.
• In the case of emergency, where the individual has either personally requested assistance or is in known peril.
• When the tracking information in question has been publicly broadcast

Support

The bill was co-sponsored by Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) Chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet.

The bill has also gained supported by a variety of civl liberties organizations including the ACLU, CCIA, CEI, Digital Libery Organization, and EFF.

Similar bills include one written by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT), who aims to require a warrent to obtain GPS data from companies and one by senators Al Franken (D-MN) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) who would require device manufacturers to recieve explicit consent from the end-user before tracking their location.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in discussing US v Jones, warned that the administration's defense of warentless GPS tracking, if upheld, would allow federal agencies to track individuals through any cellular device, as law enforcement groups can also intercept signals the phones emit.

Opposition

The Obama Administration has expressed potential opposition to the bill based on the belief that GPS tracking is no more invasive than intense human, visual surveillance.

Status

Since its initial proposal in June of 2011, the GPS Act awaits consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee as well as the House.

See also

• Ron Wyden, Senator (D-OR)
• Katz v. United States (1967)
• United States v. Knotts (1983)
• Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 1986
• Lane v. Facebook, Inc. (2010)
• United States v. Jones (2011)

External links

• Text of the proposed bill (Jun 2011)
• Sen. Wyden's Issue Page
• Senate Bill Status
• House Bill Status
• Wired Magazine's Compilation of Relevant Articles