US: Court blocks enhanced mobile phone tracking

The Federal Communications Commission produced a new set of standards for mobile operators which require them to provide much more accurate data as to the whereabouts of a mobile phone. But operators don't want it, and a Court has agreed with the operators.

The Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia did not actually deny the FCC the right to impose the proposed standards. But this week it did stay their power to implement them on the grounds of "procedural irregularities."

The challenge was brought by AT&T, Verizon WIreless, Sprint Nextel and a number of smaller, regional companies.

The proposed standards still do not go so far as in other countries: they are specifically designed under the so-called E911 initiative to provide for more accurate location information in relation to someone who has dialled the 911 emergency number from a mobile phone.

The FCC says that the reasons for the changes are simple: they were responding to reports that emergency services have searched the wrong location in rural areas where detail is poor, but that the new standards would allow even the floor of a particular building to be identified so increasing the chances of a successful rescue or medical treatment.

However, there are concerns that, once the data is available, it will become a tool for law enforcement agencies to monitor movements of any phone causing both privacy and costs concerns for the operators.

In fact, that tracking was not possible until E911 was brought in. Although some data was available e.g. to prove that a person claiming to have left the US was still in the US when calls were made to his mobile, it was not sufficiently accurate to place him at a particular location.

But after E911, those operators that began to implement it found that they received requests and even court order to provide what amount to spot-check monitoring as to the actual location of suspects. Basically, using a combination of assisted GPS and triangulation between mobile towers, a very accurate position can be taken - with a full longitude and latitude reference that can be cross referenced to accurate maps to prove the presence of a person in a particular location at a particular time.

This is nothing new in the UK where the authorities routinely monitor terrorism suspects through the location of their mobile phones. The suspects know this and often drive a hundred miles or more away from their safe house before turning their phones on.

In October last year, an order was served on T-Mobile in the USA in the following terms:

" T-Mobile shall disclose at such intervals and times as directed by ICE, latitude and longitude data that establishes the approximate positions of the Subject Wireless Telephone, by unobtrusively initiating a signal on its network that will enable it to determine the locations of the Subject Wireless Telephone...

It is further ordered that pursuant to the same authority that T-Mobile shall initiate a signal to determine the location of the subject's mobile device on the service provider's network or with such other reference points as may be reasonable (sic) available and at such intervals and times as directed by the law enforcement agent serving this order..."

One wonders what objection the phone companies can have to this except that it interferes with their relationships with customers and - obviously - has costs implications for them.

On the other hand, from the subscribers' point of view, there are serious civil liberties implications.

In Europe, there have not been any serious challenges to the use of mobile phone data to provide location information - indeed, there are publicly available services that allow the tracking of a mobile - but only with the consent of the account holder. These are often used to keep an eye on the whereabouts of children (who would often rather lose a limb than lose their phone).