Topic 1, Team 11, Post 3: Issues and Pending Legislation: GPS Tracking in the Workplace

Issues and Pending Legislation: GPS Tracking in the Workplace

Introduction

Following the criminal case, US v Jones, workers' rights organizations jumped on the opportunity to address lacking legislation to protect employee's against GPS monitoring (Whitehead). This case was the first instance the courts came to a decision that using GPS tracking on an individual was a violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The reasoning behind the decision was due to law enforcement not affixing the GPS monitoring device to the suspects car with a valid warrant to do so. The ruling in US v Jones has opened up the discussion: if GPS tracking without a proper warrant is a privacy violation for a criminal suspect, than is that true for employee's being monitored by their employer's by GPS? This article will address pending federal legislation and state legislation concerning the usage of GPS monitoring.

The Geolocation Privacy and Surveillance Act (GPS Act)

The GPS Act is legislation designed to establish a criteria for how government agencies, individuals, and commercial organizations to follow when implementing GPS monitoring and the limits the data can be used (GPS). The bill addresses the different groups and organizations that could be or are affected by changing the rules for location tracking. It requires government agencies to obtain a warrant if they would like to monitor a person's whereabouts, complying with probable cause, in a similar fashion to the way they can implement audio surveillance (S.1212). The GPS Act also requires organizations to obtain formal consent for GPS data collection.

Senator Wyden and Representative Chaffetz introduced this legislation for consideration during the 112th Congress on June 15, 2011 (GPS). However, the legislation never made it to the floor for consideration, instead it remained idle. On March 21, 2013, Sen. Wyden reintroduced the bill for examination to the 113th Congress.

Location Privacy Protection Act of 2012

The purpose of the Location Privacy Protection Act of 2012 is to prohibit companies from gathering, recording, receiving, or releasing geolocation data given by an electronic device, unless the user has authorized them to do so (GPS). Mobile devices will still have the capability to track locations but will provide greater security, ensuring that location data would not be shared without your consent. This bill is being referred to as the anti-stalking act and advocates are appealing to it increasing protection for women and young girls, arguing that it will decrease cyber-stalking (GPS).

This bill was first introduced in 2011 by Senator Franken in the 112th Congress and finally, after some adjustments, has passed the judiciary committee in the 113th Congress. The Location Privacy Protection Act has many groups supporting its cause. It is likely the bill will be passed towards the end of 2013 (Walton).

Online Communications and Geolocation Protection Act

The Online Communications and Geolocation Protection Act is similar to the GPS Act, including all the same provisions, but includes some online privacy safeguards. The bill would require government agencies to obtain a warrant in order to access online communications and location services (Reps.). Currently, the law only requires a subpoena to confiscate emails and social networking correspondence.

A variation of this bill was introduced with the ECPA 2.0 Act by Rep. Lofgren in 2012, but she plans to submit the update version, which addresses more issues in detail (Reps.).

Conclusion

The three legislative pieces discussed address the GPS tracking issues in a variety of ways. The GPS Act focal point is on the gray area of government protocol, requiring warrants to be obtained if tracking is implemented, with probable cause. The Location Privacy Protection Act addresses the GPS tracking for mobile devices and requires the user of the device to give explicit permission for the tracking to occur with clauses in for emergency situations. Finally, the Online Communications and Geolocation Protection Act is very similar to the GPS Act, including all the same provisions but adding protection with online activity. The legislation discussed has yet to be passed, but, based on the varying bills being reviewed by Congress currently, the need for more provisions regarding privacy and tracking devices is clearly in need of addressing.

At present, several states, such as California and Texas, have passed their own laws to protect people against unlawful GPS tracking. They require any tracking of an individual be done with a lawful warrant, in the event this law is broken, the offender faces penalties of legal an monetary values. Members of Congress seem to agree that it is best to determine a law federally rather than it vary state-by-state but have yet to put anything into place as of yet.

The bills discussed do not explicitly mention employer's within them, however, if the rest of the world is to be held accountable regarding GPS tracking, companies monitoring their employee's will likely be forced to follow suit. So where these may not seem to relate to workplace privacy policy, they will be changing much of the protocol in place now and inevitably, at the very least, force employer's to explicitly define their stance on GPS tracking.

Works Cited

"Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - S.1223 - CRS Summary - THOMAS (Library of Congress)." THOMAS (Library of Congress). THOMAS, n.d. Web. 4 May 2013. <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:SN01223:@@@D&summ2=m&>.

"GPS.gov: Geolocation Privacy Legislation." Welcome to GPS.gov. NOAA. Privacy Policy., n.d. Web. 4 May 2013. <http://www.gps.gov/policy/legislation/gps-act/>.

“H.R. 6529--112th Congress: ECPA 2.0 Act of 2012.” www.GovTrack.us. 2012. May 5, 2013 <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr6529>

"Reps. Zoe Lofgren Introduces Bipartisan ECPA Reform Bill - Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren." Congresswoman - Zoe Lofgren - Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren. N.p., 6 Mar. 2013. Web. 5 May 2013. <http://lofgren.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=788&Itemid=130>.

"S.1212 - 112th Congress (2011-2012) - A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to specify the circumstances in which a person may acquire geolocation information and for other purposes. - Summary | Congress.gov | Library of Congress." Congress.gov | Library of Congress. N.p., n.d. Web. 4 May 2013. <http://beta.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/senate-bill/1212>.

Smith, Allen. "Impact of Supreme Court’s GPS Ruling Weighed ." SHRM Online - Society for Human Resource Management. SHRM, 7 Feb. 2012. Web. 4 May 2013. <http://www.shrm.org/LegalIssues/FederalResources/Pages/GPSRuling.aspx>.

Walton, Zach. "Senator Al Franken’s Privacy Bill Is Approved By Senate Committee | WebProNews." WebProNews - Breaking News in Tech, Search, Social, & Business. N.p., 14 Dec. 2012. Web. 4 May 2013. <http://www.webpronews.com/senator-al-frankens-privacy-bill-is-approved-by-senate-committee-2012-12>.

Whitehead, John W.. "U.S. v. Jones: The Battle for the Fourth Amendment Continues." Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. HPMG News, 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 4 May 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-w-whitehead/us-v-jones-surveillance-technology_b_1224660.html>.

--Sherri Haught