[1vuio0pswjnm7]

"Krebs went on to cite an official at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who said cellular carriers by law are required to know the approximate location of customers in the event it's needed by emergency 911 services. Whether the carriers are permitted to sell or otherwise provide the information to other third parties is less clear. Expect there to be much more scrutiny about this in the coming weeks and months."

To see this in practice, check out MVNOs offering prepaid mobile service. Some will disable certain features unless this physical E911 address is submitted by the customer.

What if there were a limitation on how that data can be used.

[Terr_]

> Krebs went on to cite an official at the Electronic Frontier Foundation who said cellular carriers by law are required to know the approximate location of customers in the event it's needed by emergency 911 services.

IANAL but the RAY BAUM’S act (yes, it's all caps because it's a silly initialism) only applies to location data that goes "with" a particular 911 call. Not your location before the call, nor your location after the call.

So if your cell-carrier is recording your location at all moments and persisting it indefinitely, or sharing anything beyond the data generated for that particular 911 call, no law is forcing them to do that, they are choosing to disrespect your privacy for their own profits or laziness.

[sacnoradhq]

E911 came about to address lost and immobilized callers.

Unfortunately, it's inconsistently deployed and not universally usable. This is likely the result of a lack of a sufficiently-staffed regulatory body auditing for compliance and correctness because it doesn't work everywhere with all phones on all carriers even when there is the technical ability, e.g., phone has a fix. It hasn't delivered completely on its promise because it's an under-funded, under-audited mandate that needs serious carrots and sticks to ensure it's reliable.

[smcin]

No, "finding lost and immobilized callers" was the cover-story nominally used when E911 legislation was pushed hard in Congress in 1999/2000 (by the wireless industry, not directly by law enforcement).

Do we really believe that Congress authored a law to improve "safety" but that had enormous negative privacy implications, while accidentally forgetting to even speak to the other 99.999+% of the time that the average person's location data is not involved with an emergency? Why were the legislation (and debate) conspicuously silent on limiting (let alone criminalizing) use and retention of location data, let alone resale (e.g. to data brokers or private parties?)

Let's not pretend this exact outcome wasn't predicted and raised in strenuous objections by consumer advocates back in 1999; the following reads like a to-do list from lobbyists (why e.g. did the industry push for immunity for non-911 calls?)

> 10/4/1999 WIRELESS 911 BILL HITS LIABILITY, PRIVACY OBSTACLES

> Failure to pass the 911 bill-the centerpiece of the wireless industry’s lobbying campaign in 1999-would be a serious setback for carriers and 911 vendors that want immunity from lawsuits before rolling out... caller identification and position location.

> Holding the bill over until 2000 could prove highly problematic for industry, given it is an election year. Moreover, a delay would buy time for consumer groups and others that are beginning to surface and speak out on wireless liability issues pending before Congress, the Federal Communications Commission and state courts.

> In addition to liability protection for 911 and non-911 wireless calls...

> Such broad liability immunity for wireless carriers has caused an uproar from consumer advocates who claim 911 legislation is part a master plan by industry to secure shielding from virtually all lawsuits.

> In some state courts, consumers have brought litigation against wireless firms for being charged for rounded up and dropped calls, fraudulent advertising and other carrier practices. [boo hoo hoo]

https://www.rcrwireless.com/19991004/archived-articles/wirel...