https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_tracking#China
Privacy[edit]
Locating or positioning touches upon delicate
privacy issues, since it enables someone to check where a person is without the person's consent.
[13] Strict ethics and security measures are strongly recommended for services that employ positioning.
In 2012
Malte Spitz held a
TED talk[14] on the issue of mobile phone privacy in which he showcased his own stored data that he received from
Deutsche Telekom after suing the company. He described the data, which consists of 35,830 lines of data collected during the span of
Germany's
data retention at the time, saying, "This is six months of my life [...] You can see where I am, when I sleep at night, what I'm doing." He partnered up with
ZEIT Online and made his information publicly available in an
interactive map which allows users to watch his entire movements during that time in fast-forward. Spitz concluded that technology consumers are the key to challenging privacy norms in today's society who "have to fight for self determination in the digital age."
[15][16]
China[edit]
China has proposed using this technology to track commuting patterns of
Beijing city residents.
[17] Aggregate presence of mobile phone users could be tracked in a privacy-preserving fashion.
[18]
Europe[edit]
In
Europe most countries have a constitutional guarantee on the
secrecy of correspondence, and location data obtained from mobile phone networks is usually given the same protection as the communication itself.[
citation needed]
United States[edit]
In the
United States, there is a limited constitutional guarantee on the
privacy of telecommunications through the
Fourth Amendment.
[19][20][21][22][23] The use of location data is further limited by
statutory,
[24] administrative,
[25] and
case law.
[19][26] Police access of seven days of a citizen's location data is unquestionably enough to be a
fourth amendment search requiring both
probable cause and a
warrant.
[19][27]
In November 2017, the
United States Supreme Court ruled in
Carpenter v. United States that the government violates the Fourth Amendment by accessing historical records containing the physical locations of cellphones without a search warrant.