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.
= new reply since forum marked as read