You are here

Misuse of Location Based Services and Human Tracking: Prevention and Solutions


Educational Programs
Human Tracking and Privacy Rights
Protocol to Prevent, Supress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons
U.S. Regulations on Human Trafficking
Industry Responsibility
Public Action
References
Some Organizations: What You Can do to Help
Post or View Comments



Educational Programs
The potential for misuse of location-based services (LBS) is real (Dobson and Fisher 2003; see also glossary for a definition of LBS). Unfortunately, public awareness of these nascent dangers is limited. Little has been done thus far to remedy the reality of insufficient knowledge. The development and implementation of educational programs are necessary steps toward providing the public accurate information about exactly what is at risk.

Educational programs acknowledging the potential misuses of LBS are virtually nonexistent. However, related efforts are bringing these issues to light, albeit indirectly. Educational organizations and ongoing campaigns, such as the Geographic Alliance Network and GIS Day, are generating international interest in the academic field of geography and its various applications. These applications include LBS, but it is unclear whether the issue is being explicitly stated or merely implied through the interactive services provided by the aforementioned programs.

While the educational programs in place are suitable for the task of providing a general understanding of geography, we maintain that programs designed to specifically address the topic of potential LBS misuses are paramount. We offer this section of the web site as our own small contribution.

Back to Top


Human Tracking and Privacy Rights
The Privacy Act of 1974 (the “Act”), the text of which can be found at www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm, states in part that “No agency shall disclose any record which is contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains” (5 USC § 552a). The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 furthers privacy protection by mandating the standardization of computer databases and the establishment of Data Integrity Boards to curtail abuses by consumer data and marketing companies (Wikipedia). Although the Act speaks to the protection of individual privacy from abuse by private entities with respect to commonly accepted forms of records, it does not address human tracking technologies such as RFIDs and GPS/GIS tracking devices. With the likelihood of potential abuse of digital tracking technologies and devices being relatively high, additional protections should be added to the Act in the form of another amendment thereto to cover these new threats to individual privacy.

Back to Top


Protocol to Prevent, Supress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons
In 2000, the United Nations adopted the Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime (the “Convention”), in part to counter the alarming increase in human trafficking occurring worldwide. The problem is particularly acute in Eastern Europe, South and Southeast Asia and Africa. One hundred nations have ratified the Convention, noticeably absent, however, are the US, China, Russia and most of South and Southeast Asia.

The Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (the “Protocol”) under the Convention is sometimes referred to as the Trafficking protocol. Enforcement of the Protocol is controlled by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR, www.ohchr.org). The preamble of the protocol acknowledges the porous nature of international laws and the general lack of enforcement capability to tackle the problem by stating: “Taking into account the fact that, despite the existence of a variety of international instruments containing rules and practical measures to combat the exploitation of persons, especially women and children, there is no universal instrument that addresses all aspects of trafficking in persons.”

While the Protocol requires ratifying states to prevent and combat trafficking in persons (including good faith efforts to pass regulations outlawing the activity), protecting and assisting victims of trafficking and promoting cooperation among states, it does not define or codify international laws that speak directly to the problem. In order to combat well organized and entrenched entities that perpetrate human trafficking crimes, the International Criminal Court needs create prosecution mechanisms and a penalty structure similar to those they already have in place for acts considered to be war crimes.

Back to Top


U.S. Regulations on Human Trafficking
The United States joined the chorus of outcry by passing their own laws. In October 2000, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) made human trafficking a Federal crime. It was enacted to prevent human trafficking overseas, to protect victims and help them rebuild their lives in the U.S., and to prosecute traffickers of humans under Federal penalties. Prior to 2000, no comprehensive Federal law existed to protect victims of trafficking or to prosecute their traffickers (US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, www.acf.hhs.gov). The TVPA mandates the establishment of the Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking (the “Task Force”). The purpose of the Task Force is to evaluate the progress of the US and other nations in protecting the victims of trafficking, effect the prosecution of traffickers, collect data and protect the identities of victims, coordinate intergovernmental, interagency and NGO efforts to thwart human trafficking, and produce regular status reports on the progress of the above efforts (SaveASlave.com). The act itself does not mandate penalties although there have been isolated instances of persons within the US being prosecuted for human trafficking crimes under antislavery statutes. To avoid any ambiguity in the law, specific statutes pertaining to human trafficking should be passed providing for stiff penalties for violations.

Back to Top


Industry Responsibility
The LBS industry assumes the responsibility of manufacturing and marketing a product with adequate safeguards. We submit that this obligation is not currently being fulfilled and requires enforcement by the industry itself or an overseeing body.

Enforcement has two principal manifestations in this context: self-regulation or governmental regulation, the latter of which being a somewhat less attractive prospect for most industries. While neither currently exists for the LBS industry, two examples now in place for other industries illustrate possible resolutions. The Distilled Spirits Council of the United States is a self-regulating association of twelve major liquor producers. The Council recently released a report indicating its commitment to strict policing of those who market to underage consumers. The report also details the mechanisms for enforcement in an overall effort to avoid cumbersome governmental regulations (Kiley 2005). While the liquor industry has sidestepped government intervention through Council measures, the credit industry has not been as fortunate. Public outcry over the recent upsurge of identity theft cases led to the passing of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) in 2003. FACTA is administered by the Federal Trade Commission and mandates that, among other provisions, creditors must provide consumers with free credit reports (Federal Trade Commission 2004).

Mediums for the implementation of necessary regulations are available. However, such actions will not be achieved without social impetus.

Back to Top


Public Action
Successful educational programs promoting knowledge of potential LBS misuses and industry responsibility will result in public action. The generation of public interest is fundamental for prevention and solutions.

An informed public puts pressure on industry by making real the threats of bad press and governmental regulation. Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) is perhaps the gateway technology for a high public profile of the broader LBS industry. Consumer advocacy groups are currently raising issues concerning RFID technology capabilities, particularly with respect to its potential for compromising consumer privacy. RFID technology is becoming ubiquitous in the retail industry, used primarily for real-time inventory and theft deterrence. Consumer advocacy groups, claim detailed profiles of consumer behavior can and will be compiled without explicit permission from individuals (Kumar 2003). As this movement gathers momentum, expect influential groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union to become involved.

While consideration of domestic issues is merited, the larger picture demands heightened attention. The victims of LBS misuse abroad will likely not have the ability to organize and defend themselves, necessitating representation of their interests on a global scale. We might look to organizations such as Amnesty International for support, perhaps encouraging their involvement through judicious and timely appeals. Considering what is at stake, all appropriate actions must be taken.

Back to Top


References
Dobson, J.E. and Fisher, P.F. 2003. Geoslavery. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine. Spring; 47-52.

Federal Trade Commission. 2004. Provisions of New Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act Will Help Reduce Identity Theft and Help Victims Recover. FTC Press Release. www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/06/factaidt.htm.

Kiley, D. 2005. Booze Industry’s Self Regulating Ad Model Shows Promise. Food companies next? Business Week Online. www.businessweek.com/the_thread/brandnewday/archives/2005/03/booze_industrys.html.

Kim, T.J., 2002. Location-Based Services - GIS for Personal Productivity. UCGIS Short-Term Research Priority White Paper, UCGIS, www.ucgis.org/priorities/research/....

Kumar, R. 2003. Interaction of RFID Technology and Public Policy. Wipro White Paper. /www.wipro.com/insights/rfidtechnology.htm.

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, www.ohchr.org.

United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime, www.unodc.org/unodc/en/crime_cicp_convention.html.

US Department of Justice, Title 5, Section 552(a) US Code, www.usdoj.gov/04foia/privstat.htm.

US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children & Families, www.acf.hhs.gov.

Back to Top | Home