Today, 34 吃瓜直播 affiliates are filing 379 public records requests in 31 states around the nation, seeking information about how our local law enforcement agencies are using our cell phone location information to track us.
Chances are you鈥檙e walking around with a tracking device in your purse or pocket 鈥� a cell phone. Location data from your cell phone can make it easy to get directions or locate the nearest coffee shop, leaving no doubt that . Even if you use a , cell phones constantly send out signals searching for the nearest cell tower in order to make sure your calls actually go through 鈥� and companies can based on your proximity to nearby towers . The amount of time they store this information, and in how much detail, . (Remember the public outrage over Apple鈥檚 surreptitious storage of iPhone and iPad user鈥檚 location information a few months ago?)
Check out our interactive map to see what agencies we've requested records from in YOUR state!
What鈥檚 revealed by this perpetual tracking can be intensely personal; as a court , one鈥檚 location might reveal 鈥渨hether he is a weekly church goer, a heavy drinker, a regular at the gym, an unfaithful husband, an outpatient receiving medical treatment, an associate of particular individuals or political groups 鈥� and not just one such fact about a person, but all such facts.鈥漁kay, I hear you thinking, 鈥淩ight, but I鈥檓 not a criminal. Why should I care?鈥� Think again. Law enforcement鈥檚 use of cell phone location data has been widespread for years. In fact, just last week, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked Matthew Olsen, current general counsel for the National Security Agency and President Obama鈥檚 nominee to head the National Counterterrorism Center, whether the government can use cell phone location data to track Americans in the United States. , 鈥淭here are certain circumstances where that authority may exist.鈥� Cagey much?
Here鈥檚 what we do know: in 2010, FBI agents investigating a series of bank robberies of every cell phone that was near each bank when it was robbed. That same year, Michigan police officers about every cell phone near the site of a planned labor protest.
You might be asking yourself, 鈥渉ow can they do this?鈥� Our laws simply haven鈥檛 kept pace with new technology. Furthermore, while we believe that law enforcement should always be based on probable cause to access cell phone location information, the scary truth is that they don鈥檛 always obtain said warrant, and courts don鈥檛 always insist that they do.
What鈥檚 more, much of this jurisprudence is , leaving the public in the dark about when our location information is sought and under what standards. And you were wondering why we only had two examples.
In order to lift the veil on this secrecy 鈥� and uncover some more examples of when, why, and how law enforcement agencies are using our cell phone location data to track us 鈥� 34 吃瓜直播 affiliates are filing public records requests with 379 agencies seeking information including:
- whether law enforcement agents demonstrate probable cause and obtain a warrant to access cell phone location data;
- statistics on how frequently law enforcement agencies obtain cell phone location data;
- how much money law enforcement agencies spend tracking cell phones and
- other policies and procedures used for acquiring location data.
We鈥檒l keep you posted on what we learn. In the meantime, Sen. Wyden (D-OR) and Rep. Chaffetz (R-UT) have introduced bills that would create location privacy protections for law enforcement and the commercial sector. .
Supporting the Wyden/Chaffetz bill is just one way to -- we shouldn鈥檛 have to pay for our cell phones with our privacy rights.
Learn more about privacy: Subscribe to our newsletter, , and .
Learn More 吃瓜直播 the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryAug 2025
National Security
Surveillance Company Flock Now Using Ai To Report Us To Police If It Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are 鈥渟uspicious鈥�. Explore News & Commentary.Surveillance Company Flock Now Using AI to Report Us to Police if it Thinks Our Movement Patterns Are 鈥淪uspicious鈥�
Company crosses a dangerous line by beginning to offer AI suspicion-generation functions -
Press ReleaseJul 2025
National Security
Free Speech
Court Agrees Trump Administration鈥檚 Icc Sanctions Likely Violate Advocates鈥� First Amendment Rights. Explore Press Release.Court Agrees Trump Administration鈥檚 ICC Sanctions Likely Violate Advocates鈥� First Amendment Rights
BANGOR, Maine 鈥� The U.S. District Court for the District of Maine granted a preliminary injunction in Smith v. Trump, a lawsuit brought by two U.S. human rights advocates who are challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 executive order imposing sanctions on officials of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The court issued the order after concluding that the advocates were likely to succeed on their claim that the speech restrictions imposed on them by the executive order violate the First Amendment. As the lawsuit explains, these sanctions violate the First Amendment by prohibiting the advocates, and other Americans like them, from communicating with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor, including by providing legal advice, expert analysis, and evidence. Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan are suing because the sanctions forced them to stop working with the ICC鈥檚 Office of the Prosecutor and indefinitely paused their efforts to hold leading rights violators accountable for horrific crimes. 鈥淧reventing our clients and others like them from doing critical human rights work with the ICC is unconstitutional, and we鈥檙e heartened that the court saw that as well,鈥� said Charlie Hogle, staff attorney with the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he First Amendment does not allow the government to impose sweeping limits on what Americans can say and who they can say it to.鈥� Under the executive order, people in the U.S. who鈥檝e devoted their lives to seeking justice for the victims of atrocities 鈥� like the genocide of Myanmar鈥檚 Rohingya people, or gender-based violence committed against Afghan women under the Taliban 鈥� could face stiff penalties simply for exercising their constitutional right to engage and advocate with ICC investigators and prosecutors. The international community, including the United States, established the ICC in 1998 to help maintain international peace and security. The ICC investigates and prosecutes crimes of the severest magnitude 鈥� including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes 鈥� when domestic courts are unwilling or unable to do so. Today, 125 countries have joined the ICC鈥檚 founding treaty, known as the Rome Statute. As the lawsuit explains, although the United States has not ratified the Rome Statute, it has supported the ICC鈥檚 critical work on a wide range of matters. This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maine by the 吃瓜直播 and 吃瓜直播 of Maine on behalf of Matthew Smith and Akila Radhakrishnan. In 2020, when President Trump imposed similar sanctions, the 吃瓜直播 sued on behalf of human rights experts who were forced to stop working with the ICC. Our clients withdrew their lawsuit when President Joe Biden rescinded the sanctions, but a federal court in a separate suit agreed the sanctions likely violated the First Amendment. -
Press ReleaseJun 2025
National Security
Aclu Reminds President Trump That Only Congress Can Decide Whether To Use Force Against Iran. Explore Press Release.吃瓜直播 Reminds President Trump That Only Congress Can Decide Whether to Use Force Against Iran
WASHINGTON 鈥� The 吃瓜直播 tonight sent a letter to President Trump making clear that only Congress can authorize the use of military force against Iran. The letter comes amidst reports that President Trump is seriously considering Israel鈥檚 request for the U.S. to get directly involved in its current war with Iran, and as President Trump has ramped up threats on social media, including calling for all of Tehran 鈥� or over 10 million people 鈥� to immediately evacuate. While the 吃瓜直播 does not take a position on whether military force should be used against Iran, for decades the organization has been steadfast in insisting, from Vietnam through the war in Afghanistan, both wars in Iraq, the military action against Libya, and the ongoing use of force in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia, that decisions on whether to use military force require Congress's specific, advance authorization. As the letter explains, 鈥淐ongress, as representatives of the American citizenry, has exclusive authority under the Constitution to decide whether the President may use military force. Particularly in the wake of recent threats of U.S. military action against Iran, we urge you to make clear that you will refrain from use of force outside the scope of the Constitution and the law.鈥� Members of both the Senate and House of Representatives have also introduced resolutions under the War Powers Act reaffirming that the Constitution grants Congress the exclusive authority to declare war, and that hostilities with Iran must be expressly authorized through a formal declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force. 鈥淭he Constitution couldn鈥檛 be clearer, Congress alone has the power to decide whether to use force against Iran, and our leaders need to take that grave responsibility seriously,鈥� said Christopher Anders, director of the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 Democracy and Technology Division. 鈥淚f President Trump wants to send American armed forces into conflict, he has to make his case to the American people 鈥� and to the people鈥檚 representatives in Congress. That鈥檚 what makes us a democracy.鈥� -
Court CaseJan 2025
National Security
Doj Opinions On Domestic Military Deployment Foia. Explore Case.DOJ Opinions on Domestic Military Deployment FOIA
For decades, the Department of Justice has been responsible for advising the President on the use of the military within the United States. By filing a request under the Freedom of Information Act, the 吃瓜直播 obtained over a dozen DOJ opinions on the domestic use of the military, none which had previously been released to the public.