ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR RECOVERY AND TRACKING SYSTEMS FOR STOLEN SMARTPHONES

ABSTRACT

Smartphones have become prime targets for theft due to the vast amount of personal information they store. To combat this issue, robust mechanisms for tracking and locating stolen devices have emerged. These tracking systems, such as GPS, cellular tower triangulation, and Wi-Fi positioning, rely on various technologies to determine the location of a stolen smartphone. While these tracking technologies offer benefits, they also raise ethical concerns regarding privacy, consent, and legal considerations. This paper presents the results of surveys conducted to understand public concerns and awareness regarding the ethical considerations associated with stolen smartphone tracking. The findings indicate a significant level of ethical concern among participants, highlighting the importance of privacy protection and the responsible implementation of tracking systems. The research emphasizes the need for transparency, communication, and education to address these concerns and protect user privacy effectively. Collaboration among stakeholders is crucial in developing and implementing ethical solutions for tracking stolen smartphones. By prioritizing responsible practices and adherence to ethical guidelines, it is possible to strike a balance between tracking capabilities and preserving user privacy.

АННОТАЦИЯ

Смартфоны стали главной мишенью для краж из-за огромного количества хранящейся на них личной информации. Для борьбы с этой проблемой появились надежные механизмы отслеживания и определения местоположения украденных устройств. Эти системы отслеживания, такие как GPS, триангуляция сотовых вышек и позиционирование по Wi-Fi, полагаются на различные технологии для определения местоположения украденного смартфона. Хотя эти технологии отслеживания дают определенные преимущества, они также вызывают этические проблемы, связанные с конфиденциальностью, согласием и юридическими соображениями. В данной статье представлены результаты опросов, проведенных с целью выяснения озабоченности общественности и осведомленности сайта об этических аспектах, связанных с отслеживанием украденных смартфонов. Результаты свидетельствуют о значительном уровне этической обеспокоенности участников, подчеркивая важность защиты частной жизни и ответственного подхода к внедрению систем слежения. Исследование подчеркивает необходимость прозрачности, коммуникации и образования на сайте для решения этих проблем и эффективной защиты частной жизни пользователей. Сотрудничество между заинтересованными сторонами имеет решающее значение для разработки и внедрения этических решений для отслеживания украденных смартфонов. Приоритет ответственной практики и соблюдение этических норм позволят найти баланс между возможностями отслеживания и сохранением конфиденциальности пользователей.

Keywords:  stolen smartphone tracking, ethical considerations, privacy protection, user consent, GPS positioning, cellular tower triangulation, Wi-Fi positioning, transparency in tracking, data protection laws.

Ключевые слова:  отслеживание украденных смартфонов, этические аспекты, защита конфиденциальности, согласие пользователей, позиционирование GPS, триангуляция сотовых вышек, позиционирование Wi-Fi, прозрачность отслеживания, законы о защите данных.

I. Introduction

Smartphones now underpin nearly every aspect of daily life—from communication and work to banking and entertainment—and consequently hold vast stores of personal data, making them attractive targets for thieves. In London alone, roughly 91,000 devices were reported stolen in 2022—the highest annual total since 2017—yet only about 2 percent were ever recovered [1, p. 13]. To counter this, both native “find-my-device” services and third-party apps employ satellite GPS, cellular-tower triangulation, and Wi-Fi positioning to locate stolen phones [2, p. 13][3, p. 13][4, p. 13].

While these systems enhance recovery rates and support uses such as fleet management and emergency response, their capacity for continuous monitoring raises serious ethical and privacy concerns. Constant tracking can reveal sensitive patterns—where people live, work, and socialize—and if location logs fall into unauthorized hands or are retained indefinitely, users’ expectations of autonomy and confidentiality may be violated [5, p. 13][6, p. 13]. Scholars highlight four core issues in tracking technologies—privacy, accuracy, property, and accessibility—with privacy foremost when personal movement data is at stake [7, p. 13].

Addressing these challenges demands more than technical safeguards (strong encryption, access controls, data-deletion policies); it also requires up-to-date regulations and transparent practices that inform users what data is collected, how it is used, and who can access it. Combining legal compliance with user education and organizational best practices can help ensure that anti-theft tracking remains both effective and respectful of individual rights [8, p. 13].

II. Methodology

A. Data Collection

To gain a comprehensive understanding of public sentiment on this topic, our research involved conducting two surveys (and a few follow-up interviews) with individuals from various backgrounds in Almaty, Kazakhstan. The first survey was a structured questionnaire using a Likert scale format, and the second survey included additional questions about participant background and awareness levels. Both closed- ended and open-ended questions were employed. First Survey (Ethical Concerns Likert Questionnaire): We designed a Likert scale questionnaire consisting of 10 statements related to potential ethical issues of smartphone tracking. Participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. The statements covered topics such as: concerns about invasion of personal privacy by tracking systems, worries about the potential misuse of personal location data, feelings of being constantly watched due to continuous monitoring, the importance of user consent before tracking, the necessity of transparency in data practices, compliance with data protection laws, psychological implications of continuous tracking, the need for ethical guidelines in implementing tracking systems, concerns about facial recognition in tracking, and the balance between tracking capabilities and user privacy. These statements (listed in Table I) were crafted to capture respondents’ viewpoints on privacy, consent, and other ethical considerations associated with tracking systems and possible privacy violations. We collected responses on a five-point scale from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” A total of 86 participants completed the first survey.

Table I below summarizes the results of the first survey’s Likert-scale questions, showing the percentage of respondents who selected each level of agreement for each ethical concern statement:

Table 1.

Privacy Concerns Survey Results (First Survey, N=86)

Table I shows that 61.7 percent of participants “strongly agree” that tracking systems invade privacy (with an additional 12.4 percent simply “agree”), and 58.6 percent “strongly agree” that location data could be misused (plus 8.3 percent “agree”). Over 80 percent insist on transparency in tracking, and 75.3 percent “strongly agree” that such systems must obey data-protection laws. In contrast, only 3.2 percent “strongly agree” that explicit consent is essential—69.0 percent “strongly disagree”—suggesting many view theft-recovery as a special case. More than half acknowledge the psychological cost of continuous monitoring, nearly two-thirds call for formal ethical guidelines, and 87.3 percent recognize the risk of unauthorized data access. Roughly 62 percent worry about facial-recognition use, and about 78 percent believe tracking must be balanced with privacy preservation.

To quantify these attitudes, we computed an “Ethical Concern Index” for key statements by summing “agree” and “strongly agree” percentages. For privacy invasion, the index is 74.1; for data misuse, 66.9; and for explicit consent, just 12.2. Averaging across primary privacy statements yields an overall concern index of 73.1, confirming widespread ethical apprehension about smartphone tracking.

Table II summarizes the demographic profile of participants, and Table III summarizes the key questions and responses from the second survey.

Table 2.

Demographic Information of Participants (Second Survey, N=98)

As Table II shows, the second survey captured a broad mix of respondents. Slightly more males than females participated. About half of the respondents were young adults (19–27 years old), with the rest distributed across other age ranges. Education levels varied from high school to PhD, with the majority having at least some university education. Most respondents used their smartphones frequently or very frequently, and the sample was roughly balanced between iOS and Android users.

Table III presents selected results from the second survey’s key questions, which dealt with personal experience of phone theft and the awareness of tracking concepts, legal regulations, and ethical guidelines:

Table 3.

Awareness and Perceptions (Second Survey Results)

The second survey (Table III) shows that 31.9 percent of respondents had experienced phone theft, yet nearly half of those didn’t report it—mirroring the low official recovery rates [1]. Just over 53 percent knew that stolen‐phone tracking exists, but only 19.1 percent felt it essential for recovery; 40.4 percent opposed it outright on privacy grounds, and the remainder were undecided. Over 81 percent expressed at least some privacy concern (44.9 percent “very concerned”), yet only 27.1 percent felt well informed about tracking data practices. Crucially, half of all respondents were unaware of any legal regulations, and two‐thirds didn’t know of any ethical guidelines or best practices, revealing a major public knowledge gap.

B. Data Analysis

We summarized the first survey’s Likert responses to measure ethical concern levels and reviewed open-ended comments. Participants often stressed transparency and consent, despite mixed quantitative views on consent’s necessity. Many said they’d accept limited privacy compromises to recover a stolen device—provided strict oversight of tracking data. The second survey’s awareness questions highlighted widespread gaps in knowledge about tracking practices and relevant laws.

In sum, our data reveal three core findings: strong public worry over privacy and data misuse; low awareness of existing legal and ethical guidelines; and divided opinions on balancing theft recovery with privacy rights. These insights inform the discussion that follows.

III. Results and Discussion

Public concern over stolen‐phone tracking is high: with an average ethical‐concern score of 73/100, 62 percent fear privacy invasion and 59 percent worry about data misuse—yet 50 percent don’t know any governing laws and 67 percent are unaware of ethical guidelines. Nearly all (92 percent) demand transparency about data collection and 85 percent insist on legal compliance, while over 70 percent warn that continuous monitoring can cause stress. Most respondents (80 percent) call for clear ethical standards and cross‐sector collaboration. In practice, responsible anti‐theft tracking must combine user education, strong legal safeguards, and privacy‐first designs—such as owner‐only activation, encryption, and automatic data deletion—to balance recovery benefits with individual rights.

VI. Conclusion

In summary, our study reveals strong public unease about stolen‐phone tracking: 61.7 percent worry about privacy invasion, 58.6 percent fear data misuse, and the average ethical‐concern index is 73 / 100. Yet half of respondents don’t know any relevant laws, and two-thirds are unaware of ethical guidelines—a gap that undermines even well-designed safeguards.

Closing this gap requires transparent policies, user education, and clear communication of legal rights and technical limits. Policymakers, law enforcement, manufacturers, and users must collaborate to embed ethical principles—explicit consent where possible, compliance with data-protection laws, and built-in privacy controls—into every tracking system.

By boosting public awareness and operational transparency, stakeholders can build trust in anti-theft features. That trust not only encourages responsible use but also enhances cooperation in recovering stolen devices, striking the right balance between effective theft prevention and respect for individual privacy.

References:

1. Evans J. Phone reported stolen in London every six minutes. // BBC News. – 2023. – April 11. – Electronic resource. – Available: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-65105199
2. Mswela M. Tagging and Tracking of Persons with Albinism: A Reflection of Some Critical Human Rights & Ethical Issues Arising from the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) as Part of a Solution to Cracking Down Violent Crimes against Persons with Albinism. // Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal. – 2019. – Vol. 22. – P. 1–27.
3. Michael K., McNamee A., Michael M. G. The emerging ethics of humancentric GPS tracking and monitoring. // Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Business (ICMB 2006), Copenhagen, Denmark: IEEE Computer Society. – 2006. – July.
4. Mamdyal A. S., Sandupatla P. R., Saka N. I., Kothawale P. J., Shirashayad V. V., Kazi K. S. GPS Tracking System. // International Journal of Advanced Research in Science, Communication and Technology (IJARSCT). – 2022. – Vol. 2, no. 1. – Art. no. 568529. – DOI: 10.48175/568529
5. Mason R. O. Four Ethical Issues of the Information Age. // MIS Quarterly. – 1986. – Vol. 10, no. 1. – P. 5–12.
6. Lee W. W., Zankl W., Chang H. An ethical approach to data privacy protection. // ISACA Journal. – 2016. – Vol. 6.