U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has obtained access to a powerful new surveillance technology capable of monitoring mobile phones across entire neighborhoods, raising fresh concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and government overreach, according to a report by 404 Media.
Documents reviewed by the outlet show that the system allows ICE to identify and track mobile devices within a defined geographic area—such as a city block or neighborhood—and follow the movements of those devices and their owners over time.
The technology can reportedly map where individuals live, work, and travel, creating detailed location histories that extend far beyond targeted investigations.
At the center of the system is commercial location data collected from hundreds of millions of mobile phones and accessed through a company called Penlink, a surveillance vendor that works with law enforcement agencies. An internal ICE legal analysis obtained by 404 Media concludes that this data can be queried without a warrant, a finding that has alarmed privacy advocates and constitutional scholars.
The acquisition comes amid ICE’s expanded enforcement operations, including mass deportation efforts and heightened scrutiny of speech and protest activity. Civil liberties groups warn that the timing and breadth of the technology create significant risks for misuse, particularly against immigrant communities and U.S. citizens alike.
“This is a very dangerous tool in the hands of an out-of-control agency,” said Nathan Freed Wessler, deputy project director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “This granular location information paints a detailed picture of who we are, where we go, and who we spend time with.”
Unlike traditional surveillance methods that focus on specific suspects, the system described by 404 Media appears designed for area-based monitoring, enabling authorities to sweep up data on large numbers of people who are not suspected of any crime. Experts say this raises serious Fourth Amendment questions, particularly as courts continue to grapple with how constitutional protections apply to commercially sourced digital data.
ICE has not publicly disclosed how extensively the tool is being used, what safeguards are in place, or whether individuals whose data is collected are ever notified. The lack of transparency has prompted calls from lawmakers and advocacy groups for clearer rules governing federal use of commercial location data and stronger oversight of immigration enforcement agencies.
As debate over digital privacy intensifies in Washington, ICE’s use of neighborhood-level phone surveillance is likely to become a flashpoint in broader discussions about the limits of government power in the age of ubiquitous mobile tracking.
