Privacy News FBI is buying location data to track US citizens, director confirms

[Brownie2019]

Content source

https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/18/fbi-is-buying-location-data-to-track-us-citizens-kash-patel-wyden/

The FBI has resumed purchasing reams of Americans’ data and location histories to aid federal investigations, the agency’s director, Kash Patel, testified to lawmakers on Wednesday.
This is the first time since 2023 that the FBI has confirmed it was buying access to people’s data collected from data brokers, who source much of their information — including location data — from ordinary consumer phone apps and games, per Politico. At the time, then-FBI director Christopher Wray told senators that the agency had bought access to people’s location data in the past but that it was not actively purchasing it.
When asked by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, if the FBI would commit to not buying Americans’ location data, Patel said that the agency “uses all tools … to do our mission.”
“We do purchase commercially available information that is consistent with the Constitution and the laws under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act — and it has led to some valuable intelligence for us,” Patel testified Wednesday.
Wyden said buying information on Americans without obtaining a warrant was an “outrageous end-run around the Fourth Amendment,” referring to the constitutional law that protects people in America from device searches and data seizures.
When reached by TechCrunch, a spokesperson for the FBI declined to comment beyond Patel’s remarks, and did not provide answers to questions about the agency’s purchase of commercial data, including how often the FBI obtained location data and from which brokers.
Government agencies typically have to convince a judge to authorize a search warrant based on some evidence of a crime before they can demand private information about a person from a tech or phone company. But in recent years, U.S. agencies have skirted this legal step by purchasing commercially available data from companies that amass large amounts of people’s location data originally derived from phone apps or other commercial tracking technology.
For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection purchased a tranche of data sourced from real-time bidding, or RTB, services, according to a document obtained by 404 Media. These technologies are central to the mobile and web advertising industry, and they collect information such as location and other identifiable data used to target people viewing ads. Surveillance firms can observe this process and gather information about a user’s location, and then potentially sell that data to brokers or federal agencies looking to circumvent the warrant process.
The FBI claims it does not need a warrant to use this information for federal investigations; though this legal theory has not yet been tested in court.
Last week, Wyden and several other lawmakers introduced a bipartisan, bicameral bill called the Government Surveillance Reform Act, which among other things would require a court-authorized warrant before federal agencies can buy Americans’ information from data brokers.
Updated with response from the FBI.

 

[Bot]

This is a significant privacy issue, but it is important to separate the reported facts from the legal and policy debate.

What is confirmed here

Based on the quoted report:

• FBI Director Kash Patel testified that the FBI does buy “commercially available information.”
• That reportedly includes data obtained through data brokers.
• Senator Wyden argues this is effectively a warrantless workaround around Fourth Amendment protections.
• A proposed U.S. bill, the Government Surveillance Reform Act, would require warrants in at least some of these situations.

What is not settled

A few points are still legally unresolved:

• Whether these purchases are fully constitutional in all uses has not been definitively settled by courts.
• The exact scope of what data is being bought, how often, and from which brokers was not clarified in the quoted material.
• “Commercially available” does not automatically mean privacy-safe or constitutionally unproblematic.

Why this matters technically

A lot of this ecosystem exists because many apps and ad-tech SDKs collect far more data than users realize.

That can include:

• Precise or approximate location
• Advertising IDs
• Device metadata
• App usage patterns
• Data shared through ad exchanges and real-time bidding systems

Even if a user never directly gives data to a government agency, the data may still enter the broker market through ordinary apps, analytics libraries, or advertising pipelines.

Practical privacy takeaway

For ordinary users, the most useful response is to reduce data exposure at the device and app level:

• Limit location permission to “While using the app” or deny it unless necessary
• Disable ad personalization where possible
• Remove apps that do not clearly need location access
• Prefer apps from vendors with transparent privacy policies
• Avoid unnecessary free apps that depend heavily on ad-tech monetization
• Reset or restrict advertising IDs where the platform allows it

These steps do not guarantee privacy, but they can reduce how much data enters the broker ecosystem in the first place.

Bottom line

The concerning part is not just the FBI’s testimony, but the broader data-broker model that makes this possible. The article supports the claim that the FBI is again purchasing commercially available data, but the full legal limits and oversight questions remain unsettled.

 

[Halp2001]

What’s truly disturbing about this news is that it feels like a lost episode of Person of Interest. In the show, 'The Machine' tracked every move using data people gave away without a second thought; here, we see reality mimicking fiction as agencies simply buy that pre-assembled puzzle from commercial brokers.

Even if you’re not a U.S. citizen, the pattern is global: location data knows no borders. What starts as 'commercially available' metadata for targeted ads ends up being a detailed map of our daily routines that anyone with the right budget can observe.

In the end, the lesson is exactly what Finch taught us: never underestimate the power of the invisible. Every permission we grant and every click we make leaves a digital footprint. Thanks for sharing this; it’s a stark reminder that the line between sci-fi and our digital reality is getting thinner every day.

 

[cartaphilus]

and this surprises people? The data is there, they didn't collect it through any of their means it's just sitting there to purchase so of course gov is yet another customer for the data. If an advertiser can use your data to spam the crap out of you then why not the gov?

The question is not weether gov is using it or not the question is: "why are you allowing your privacy to be advertised freely?"

and think of it this way: EVERY corporation/gov whose business includes people will use this data....so just because OMG FBI has it doesn't mean that KGB, etc won't have it. they also have it, everyone who can purchase it has it.

As with everything in this universe it's not because it's there it's how you use it.