WTF this is ridiculous. I would say this is likely some kind of vulnerability at the phone level, not the tower level, so in theory phones could be jailbroken to disable this ability (or google/apple could start using better morals and prevent this from happening at the hardware and/or OS level).
On somewhat of a side-note I would think this would be overturned via the supreme court as your phone's location is not public information and is very different from "metadata" that has generally been held that people do not have a reasonable expectation of keeping private. Not only that but if the phone was in airplane mode then it would be even more clear that the defendant did not want his location disclosed.
Not a vulnerability but an intentional creation.
The government mandates the GPS function on your cell phone so that they can track you in just this manner.
http://www.informationweek.com/mobile/mobile-devices/gps-mandatory-on-mobile-phones-by-2018/d/d-id/1100561?To modernize the 911 system, the FCC has ruled that all wireless carriers must offer GPS; VoIP services also.
In an effort to modernize the 911 system, the Federal Communications Commission issued a rule Sept. 27 that will mandate that all U.S. carriers include GPS in their phones by 2018. That includes VoIP services as well. The goal is to allow emergency workers to find your position when you dial 911, similar to the way they can when you call via landlines.
It just goes to show even ideas with good intentions have consequences.
Details on the conviction
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-14/marijuana-runner-had-no-phone-gps-privacy-right-court-says-1-.html“If a tool used to transport contraband gives off a signal that can be tracked for location, certainly the police can track the signal,” U.S Circuit Judge John M. Rogers wrote. “The law cannot be that a criminal is entitled to rely on the expected untrackability of his tools.”
In a fragmented ruling addressing the affixing of a GPS device to a suspect’s car without a warrant, the high court majority said police in many cases will need a warrant to track suspects using those means.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia faulted the police for encroaching upon “a protected area.”
“No such physical intrusion occurred in Skinner’s case,” Rogers and Clay said in their ruling today.
Dissenting in part, U.S. Circuit Judge Bernice Donald said the discovery of Skinner’s location by using a mobile phone constituted a search as defined by the U.S. Constitution, requiring federal agents to obtain a warrant or explain why they should be granted an exception.
Donald concurred in Skinner’s ultimate conviction on other grounds.
“We do not mean to suggest there was no reasonable expectation of privacy because Skinner’s phone was used in the commission of a crime,” Rogers and Clay said in a footnote to their opinion. “On the contrary, an innocent actor would similarly lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in the inherent external locatability of a tool that he or she bought.”
The case is U.S. v. Skinner. 09-6497, U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Cincinnati).
