Ajit Pai and Republicans in Congress Helped Enable 'Bounty Hunters' to Track Your Phone

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Jason Koebler Retweeted

The FCC "may find itself without the power to do anything about" location data scandals, "and it certainly bears mentioning, this is entirely by design."

Spot on by @dellcam
https://gizmodo.com/ajit-pai-and-republicans-in-congress-helped-enable-boun-1832030913?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_campaign=sharebar … via @gizmodo

Link to tweet

PRIVACY AND SECURITY
Ajit Pai and Republicans in Congress Helped Enable 'Bounty Hunters' to Track Your Phone

Dell Cameron
Thursday 6:26pm

A growing chorus of Washington lawmakers is now pressing federal regulators to do something about the fact that wireless carriers have recklessly sold off data that can pinpoint the locations of their customers’ mobile phones (and thus the customers themselves). The firestorm of inquiries began after it was revealed that during an investigative sting, a Motherboard reporter was able to obtain the physical location of a phone he’d planted in Queens, New York, after shelling out $300 to some shadowy figure in a back-alley deal.

Fifteen U.S. senators joined that chorus on Thursday by seeking a response from the Trump administration, whose regulatory chiefs have had nothing substantive to say about the story, which detailed, in part, how “bounty hunters” had created their own black market for Americans’ location data. ... A letter by the senators to the heads of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) reads:

{snip}

To be clear, the regulatory environment that allowed these dubious sales to take place is the direct result of lobbying by the major carriers themselves. Weeks after President Trump was inaugurated, telecom lobbying effectuated the rollback of landmark Obama-era privacy rules intended to protect consumers, by way of notice and consent, from this precise form of abuse. The vote to repeal the rules in early 2017 fell largely along party lines, with only 15 House Republicans siding against it.

What’s more, the FCC, which has been repeatedly called on to investigate the matter, may find itself without the power to do anything about it, even if it does determine the carriers are at fault. ... And it certainly bears mentioning, this is entirely by design.

Two weeks ago @motherboard @vice found anyone could pay a few hundred dollars & learn where your mobile phone is within a few hundred meters. That's outrageous. I called for an investigation. Today 15 senators called on @FCC & @FTC to take action. Amen. https://www.wyden.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/15-senators-location-aggregator-letter-to-fcc-ftc-final.pdf …

Link to tweet

....

Previously at DU:

Report of Bounty Hunters Buying Phone Location Data Leaves U.S. Senators Seething

[Igel]

1. It's complicated.

There are apps that report your data with more accuracy. You may not know that they're doing it, but when you agree to the EULA you're agreeing to this. People have no reason to complain about this. "I'm sorry I gave consent, but I couldn't be bothered to know what I was doing" or "but I wanted the app so badly, it's unfair for them to restrict my use if I don't agree!" Neither resonate with me; few apps are of that overwhelming importance.

Every time a website asks to track your location and you don't block it, they know pretty well where you are--and are under no obligation to dispose of that data. Or not sell it. That wasn't covered by the regulation because it's governed by contract.


The cell phone companies sell access to the data to private companies. But the companies ping the user and get permission to report their locations unless there's a warrant involved or if it's the result of requesting a service that requires location. For example, you call with some emergency (that's the standard example, but for all I know that might mean 'call for pizza delivery').

If that's the case--and, yes, it requires trusting somebody I don't know who doesn't work in the government--then "meh." However, there have been instances where LEO used such services without actually having a warrant--the companies involved don't check to see if there is a warrant. Some restrictions on behavior are directed at the government, mind you, so that's a problem. However, we're back to gainsaying the "it requires trusting somebody I don't know who actually does work in the government," so we don't trust government, either. Even as we say we trust government. The response, "But it's local law enforcement I don't trust" doesn't hold water because there's nothing keeping FBI folk from using the services, and currently the FBI can do no wrong.

I'd like regulations that didn't prohibit access, but put in hoops. Either ping the person and get permission or require some electronic filing system so that bounty hunters or LEO or even others can get a person's information if there's a valid court order, whether bench warrant or others, that legitimize access. I could imagine, for instance, a parent owed child support could find out if the ex-spouse is nearby; or if a person that was assaulted and has a restraining order needs proof that the restraining order is violated. I find no constitutional provision saying that surveillance is the province of just government; think gumshoes following their target. Fear of abuse is precisely why many libertarians despise a lot of government--nobody can claim that government employees never misuse classified or privileged information, right? It's a question of frequency and the use made. If hitmen start using such information, then it's a bigger problem.

But notice that the objection in the OP is "bounty hunters." That is, people trying to track people down who skipped out on bail and are in violation of both court order and personal contract. We should protect such people ... Because it means protecting ourselves. I find that proposition iffy.

The regs that were repealed, BTW, were never actually put into force. They were repealed before they could take effect.

The "few hundred meters" is also a bit less crucial than it seems. One screen shot that showed "location" narrowed down the location in NYC to between 3rd AV and 6th AV, 31st and 23rd streets. Most likely nearer the middle, but the person could be anywhere in there. And if the data are only cached for a few minutes and are a minute out of date by the time you get the info, it's some help (if you repeatedly ping the person) but not much if they're not moving. It's mostly a help if you know the person and where they're likely to be in that area, or if you are trying to link two people and find that they often are in the same radius.

In the NYC city example, moreover, there were a lot of multistory buildings in the area.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

2. Thanks for the insight. NT

[Igel]

3. I think the problem is that a lot of people just don't like bounty hunters.

They're sort of civilian law enforcement that does less law enforcement and more "get the guy" work.

The popular image is they go around, rough people up, can shoot with impunity, sort of the Wild West in 21st century New York City. And since they often get the wrong guy, or need to use violence, innocent bystanders really suffer.

Recently some reporter in something I read took on that media image and said that most apprehensions are done by knocking on the target's door and saying, "I'm a bounty hunter, you're in violation of your agreement and I'm taking you to the police." If the target runs, the bounty hunter may run but only uses force in the event that they're assaulted. That might be an accurate characterization or not, I have no idea. Can't find the thing online.

But still, most people react to what's in films and on Twitter. "This is a really boring explanation of really boring facts" tends to be forgotten real quick and one fictional action-packed scene that might have some partisan grievance worked into it has a greater effect.

[JDC]

4. I believe that carriers were selling your location info

That is different than an app you give permission to in order to improve your own experience or help you better source data at your own discression. I also think that there is a certain amount of good faith you should expect when purchasing a service such as a cellular phone and data. Suggesting that people are just too lazy to read the fine print on a User agreement feels a little aquiesant and honestly not something that we should all just expect.

This Shit would never fly in a Europe. GDPR protects the consumer and person above all else. Ajit Pai could not give two Fs about your right to anything, let alone privacy. He has always been a carrier shill(literally a Verizon shill) and always will be.