ACLU-NC and Bay Guardian File New FOIA to Uncover Local U.S. Attorney Demands for Location Info

The ACLU of Northern California (ACLU-NC) and San Francisco Bay Guardian (Bay Guardian) have filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to try to uncover how United States Attorneys in the Northern District of California are seeking and accessing sensitive location data. (Read the FOIA request here)

Location data from your cell phone or portable device can make it easy to get directions or locate the closest coffee shop. But that location data that is collected and retained for long period of times by mobile companies can also reveal a lot of personal information about you- where you go, what you do, and who you know. And outdated privacy laws, written before GPS and other location-aware technologies even existed, mean that much of this personal information isn't being properly protected from prying eyes.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union released findings from a 32-state coordinated public records act request seeking the policies, procedures, and practices of state and local law enforcement agencies related to cell tracking, revealing that many government entities are violating the privacy rights of Americans by obtaining location information without a probable cause warrant.

Previous ACLU Freedom of Information Act requests have revealed that the Department of Justice has maintained since at least 2007 that the government doesn't need to obtain a warrant and show probable cause to track people's location with only one exception: real-time GPS and triangulation data, and that U.S. Attorneys around the country are only encouraged to obtain a warrant based on probable cause prior to engaging in precise cell phone tracking. FOIA requests have also revealed that some U.S. Attorney offices do not even comply even with this set of guidelines.

In December 2009, it was revealed that telecommunications provider, Sprint Nextel, received over 8 million demands from government agencies for access to customer location information between September 2008 and October 2009. In September 2011, it was also revealed that federal authorities had utilized a "stingray" device to track a mobile device and locate an individual in a California home.

Following the Supreme Court's January 23, 2012 decision in United States v. Jones, in which the Court unanimously held that it was unconstitutional to install a global positioning device (GPS) on an individual's car and utilize it to track the individual for 28 days without a warrant, the FBI was forced to turn off nearly 3,000 active GPS devices in the field.

The ACLU-NC and the Bay Guardian have asked for expedited processing of this FOIA request because it is a crucial time for the public and policymakers to know why, when, and how the government is utilizing location tracking because legislators on both the state and federal level are weighing new privacy laws related to location tracking. Senator Mark Leno has introduced the California Location Privacy Act (SB 1434) and the GPS Act has been introduced in Congress. The White House is also initiating a multi-stakeholder process to develop a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights and issues related to mobile privacy are on the agenda. Access to information about the government's current practices is necessary for a meaningful and informed public debate over pressing public policy issues related to location privacy and pending legislative and policy discussions.

The FOIA request filed by the ACLU-NC and the Bay Guardian asked specifically for the following information:

• All requests, subpoenas, and applications for court orders or warrants seeking location information since January 1, 2008.
• Any template applications or orders that have been utilized by United States Attorneys in the Northern District to seek or acquire location information since January 1, 2008.
• Any documents since January 1, 2008, related to the use or policies of utilizing any location tracking technology, including but not limited to cell-site simulators or digital analyzers such as devices known as Stingray, Triggerfish, AmberJack, KingFish or Loggerhead.
• Any records related to the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Jones, excluding pleadings or court opinions filed in the matter in the Supreme Court or courts below.

To learn more about the ACLU's work in the courts, legislatures, and communities to better protect the privacy of location data and to urge your state and federal lawmakers to upgrade privacy protections for the modern mobile world, visit here.

Nicole A. Ozer is the Technology and Civil Liberties Policy Director with the ACLU of Northern California.