Big quote: The FBI's ongoing use of commercially purchased location data reignited debate in Washington this week over how far law enforcement can go in monitoring Americans' digital footprints without a court order. At a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing Wednesday, FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed that the bureau buys location data from private vendors – data that can reveal people's movements with the kind of precision once obtainable only through phone carriers.
Patel defended the practice as lawful and useful for national security work, citing compliance with the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
Patel told lawmakers the data had "led to some valuable intelligence for us," but stopped short of saying the agency would end the purchases. That refusal drew sharp criticism from some senators, who say the practice undermines constitutional protections.
Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat and longtime critic of government surveillance, said the FBI is sidestepping the Fourth Amendment. "Doing that without a warrant is an outrageous end run around the Fourth Amendment, it's particularly dangerous given the use of artificial intelligence to comb through massive amounts of private information," he said. Wyden urged passage of the Government Surveillance Reform Act, a bipartisan proposal aimed at closing such loopholes.
Sen. Wyden: Can you commit to not buying Americans' location data? Kash Patel: The FBI uses all tools to do our mission
– Headquarters (@headquartersnews.bsky.social) March 18, 2026 at 10:54 AM
[image or embed]
The dispute traces back to the Supreme Court's 2018 decision in Carpenter v. United States, which held that law enforcement agencies need a warrant to obtain mobile phone location data from carriers. However, the ruling does not explicitly address location information sold by commercial data brokers. It's a distinction that has become increasingly significant as online advertising companies and analytics firms trade vast amounts of geolocation records.
By purchasing that data, the FBI can sidestep the warrant requirement that applies to phone providers. Critics have argued that the difference is largely semantic. Whether government agents request the data or simply buy it, the result is the same: officials can track where people go.
Some lawmakers defended the bureau's approach. Committee chair Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas framed the issue as a question of market availability rather than surveillance overreach. "The key words are commercially available," Cotton said, suggesting that data already on the open market should not be treated as protected.
That view reflects a broader divide in Washington over how to reconcile national security investigations with digital privacy. The spyware debate, the use of AI for pattern recognition, and the availability of real-time location data from brokers all point to a regulatory vacuum.
Despite the pushback at the hearing, Patel's remarks indicate the FBI is unlikely to alter its current data-purchasing practices. For now, the agency maintains that buying commercially available information is within its legal authority, even as lawmakers warn that the boundary between commerce and surveillance is eroding.
FBI admits buying Americans' location data and says it won't stop
