Location data goes beyond our phone recommending nearby restaurants, finding the nearest Wifi network, or suggesting a tag for your Instagram post. It holds incredible value in establishing and rejecting alibis in criminal cases. Geo-location allows us to determine the exact physical location of any person or object on Earth. In an incredibly digital world with even more mobile devices, geo-location helps examine the past movement of these devices at the time of interest – allowing us to answer the “where” in forensic investigations.
What is a GPS? GPS, or Global Positioning System, is a system that provides navigation data, including time and geolocation, from satellites to GPS devices on Earth – the GPS device can then determine its position in a process called triangulation. Most devices have a built-in GPS, allowing applications on these devices – as well as at many times, the government – to track and determine sensitive information about a person.
There are a few kinds of GPS “tags” used by law enforcement. The first is a radio-frequency tag, which relies on radio waves to identify people. A device located at the “base station” – often time an individual’s home – keeps reading information from the tag on the person, “poll[ing] the tag occasionally over a specific radio band to detect if it is within range.” (Privacy International) The base station will be alerted if the tag does not report back, indicating it is out of range; after a certain number of alerts, law enforcement may be involved, as it might be likely that the tag wearer has escaped.
GPS ankle tags contain a GPS chip and are calibrated “with the parameters that the court has set for the sentence” (Kapatec) These report the location of the tag wearer to a monitoring center through GPS satellites, cell towers, and mobile networks. The ankle tag also contains a SIM card, which is used to “authenticate it to the network” (Privacy International). Location surveillance allows law enforcement to determine whether a person of interest is in an authorized location and may reduce recidivism (the tendency of an offender to re-offend).
So far, electronic monitoring has been used frequently to monitor inmates, parolees, and patients in psychiatric hospitals. A 2010 study regarding a “large-scale evaluation of use of electronic monitoring in a large population of offenders found that it reduced the likelihood of failure under community supervision by 31%.” (Cambridge) Additionally, in some cases, location tracking continues even after release from prison. In Florida, it is mandatory for child sex offenders to wear GPS trackers for the rest of their lives. However, some other studies suggest that such monitoring does little to deter further offenses. At the same time, the US Office of Justice Programs emphasizes location monitoring as a cost-effective alternative to keeping inmates that they see pose little risk to the community.
Location monitoring via apps has provided exceptional use to law enforcement, allowing them to map out “patterns of life” by tracing people’s past movements. One app that has been used frequently is “Fog Reveal,” which “follows the devices through their advertising IDs, unique numbers assigned to each device” (PBS) With the data, police can quickly pinpoint a geographic area or “search by a specific device’s ad ID numbers.” Even if data does not directly identify a device owner, it can often provide other critical information, including contact information and the IDs of other devices in the area and at the time of interest. It is also favorable because of its lower cost, which allows investigators to conduct surveillance “on budget.” Finally, the app also offers “predictive analytics,” enabling police to identify where networks of crime may be based.
In the UK, ankle tags have been placed on refugees seeking asylum, who may be held for extended periods under surveillance while awaiting bail. Given the invasive nature of this surveillance, “for those fleeing authoritarian regimes or suffering the effects of trauma or poor mental health, the intrusion can be particularly distressing” (The Guardian). For anyone subject to monitoring, “that visible ankle bracelets may reinforce stigma;” psychiatric patients may also suffer from additional stress after being subject to this intense electronic monitoring.
Location tracking comes at a huge personal risk. Apps that track your movements can sell this information to third parties. And although private companies get consent from users to track them and the movements remain anonymous, mapping an entire route, such as a “daily route from a house to an office” could lead to a person being identified. Additionally, it’s not just the process that raises concern, but what happens to the data after collection. Just like any other information, it may be subject to indefinite storage and may be accessed by unauthorized users. Others argue forms of these intense surveillance methods constitute violations of the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as law enforcement may access location data without a warrant. However, location tracking did prove itself in recent times – when COVID was especially rampant, location tracking by the government proved crucial to identifying close contacts and mitigating the spread of the virus.
Sources:
https://privacyinternational.org/explainer/4796/electronic-monitoring-using-gps-tags-tech-primer
What Are the Rules Of Wearing a GPS Ankle Monitor?
The Forensics Lens 
Leave a comment