Description

India’s government is evaluating a highly controversial proposal that would require all smartphone manufacturers to activate A-GPS–based satellite location tracking permanently on their devices. The request originated from the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI), representing major telecom providers like Jio and Bharti Airtel, who argue that always-on A-GPS would allow law enforcement agencies to obtain precise, real-time location data instead of relying on less accurate cell-tower information. However, this requirement would remove users’ ability to disable location services, making continuous device tracking mandatory. The move has sparked major concerns from global tech companies, who warn the policy would create an unprecedented surveillance framework. Apple, Google, Samsung, and industry body ICEA have strongly opposed the mandate. In a confidential letter to the government, ICEA called the proposal "regulatory overreach" and emphasized that A-GPS was never designed for continuous surveillance and no country in the world enforces always-on device-level tracking. Their resistance comes at a delicate time in India, shortly after the government withdrew a previous directive requiring smartphone manufacturers to preload a government-run cyber safety app due to public backlash and privacy concerns. The proposal has also intensified debate among civil society groups, digital rights advocates, and cybersecurity experts who warn that enforced location tracking poses significant risks, including misuse, unauthorized access, or abuse by malicious actors or authorities. The situation highlights a widening conflict between national security objectives and user privacy rights. Law enforcement agencies insist accurate geolocation data is crucial for criminal investigations, but privacy advocates warn that the measure sets a dangerous precedent for mass surveillance. A scheduled meeting between the Home Ministry and smartphone executives was postponed, leaving the future of the mandate uncertain. As discussions continue, the final decision could set global-level precedents regarding how much control a government may exert over consumer device tracking and digital privacy standards.