New York City To Consider Banning Sale of Cellphone Location Data

Telecommunications firms and mobile-based apps make billions of dollars per year by selling customer location data to marketers and other businesses, offering a vast window into the whereabouts of cellphone and app users, often without their knowledge. That practice, which has come under increasing scrutiny and criticism in recent years, is now the subject of proposed legislation in New York [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. If passed, it is believed that the city would become the first to ban the sale of geolocation data to third parties. From a report: The bill, which will be introduced on Tuesday, would make it illegal for cellphone companies and mobile app developers to share location data gathered while a customer's mobile device is within the five boroughs. Cellphone companies and mobile apps collect detailed geolocation data of their users and then sell that information to legitimate companies such as digital marketers, roadside emergency assistance services, retail advertisers, hedge funds or -- in the case of a class-action lawsuit filed against AT&T -- bounty hunters. "The average person has no idea they are vulnerable to this," said Councilman Justin L. Brannan, a Brooklyn Democrat who is introducing the bill. "We are concerned by the fact that someone can sign up for cell service and their data can wind up in the hands of five different companies."

Re: So

[b0s0z0ku]

The cell phone network needs to know which tower the phone is closest to and connected to. Sale of this data to third parties is NOT needed for the network to function.

Re:

[jellomizer]

It does. However NYC is a big city and very dense. Location information to be valuable to a NYC service needs to be accurate within just a dozen blocks. While someone living in Rural Upstate NY Location information is effective within about 10 miles.

The point of selling Location data is so companies know who to advertise too, and get a scope who would be near by to buy from the local establishments. In NYC people would rarely walk more then a mile to get to somewhere. Just because there is so much stuff

So, they'll give the location data away for free

[goombah99]

to their "partners" who will in turn share something valuable back. No paying. just sharing.

All customer data should be banned

[Anonymous Coward]

The only legitimate use of customer data without consent is for law enforcement with proper warrant.

Re:

[Archangel Michael]

You consent the moment you buy a cell phone. It is a requirement of modern cell phones to know your location. Don't want modern features, get a feature phone that doesn't have Location Data. They still know your location by virtue of the tower(s) you connect to.

Re:

[b0s0z0ku]

Certain apps need to know your location via GPS for mapping purposes. This data theoretically doesn't need to leave the phone. Carriers need to know which cell the phone is connected to, but again, this data doesn't need to go beyond the carrier. In fact, it can be deleted once the phone call or data transaction is completed.

Re:

[mrwireless]

This is a pars-pro-toto fallacy and a false equivalency: just because a part of the system has to know your location to function, doesn't mean that the data is then free to do with whatever you like.

You give sensitive information to your doctor, but you don't think it's normal that he/she sells that to the highest bidder.

Are you willing to pay more for your phone?

[thesjaakspoiler]

Because phone companies are going to stick to their revenue goals.

uh huh

[Anonymous Coward]

...legitimate companies such as digital marketers..

stopped reading

What if app has a TOS that permits them do this?

[schwit1]

If the contract is voluntary and not a Hobson's choice it seems NYC would be interfering with a lawful contract.

Re:

[b0s0z0ku]

Contracts are still governed by law. You can't consent to prostitution in most parts of the US, for example.

Re:

[Rockoon]

You can so long as you are filming it.

Re:

[mrwireless]

Interfering? They would be doing their job.

Imagine if you signed a contract to start a night club in your living room, and when the neighbours start complaining you say "yeah but I have a lawful contract".

I'm pretty sure the local government would invalidate that contract pretty quickly.

Re:

[dcw3]

NYC has no business doing so. The contract as no impact on anyone other than the phone owner and his/her provider.

Now, if you want to do this, you need to do so at a national level. If I buy a phone in a suburb of NYC, and happen to go to NYC, would the provider be breaking the law sharing my data? It's really unenforceable locally IMO, but I could be proven incorrect.

Re:What if app has a TOS that permits them do this

[Gilgaron]

Whether it is lawful or not depends on what the law is.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Leftists have always opposed corporate power

[b0s0z0ku]

I'd rather have government have power (where each voter has a theoretically equal vote) than give it to corporations, where you buy votes at one vote per share. In the second instance, the rich have dramatically more power than everyone else.

Ban or Require

[registrations_suck]

Democrats...if they are not banning it, they are requiring it.

At least they get it right this time.