With so many people walking about using various types mobile devices phone users are wondering if they will have any privacy at all or what amount of privacy they can hope to get on their mobile phones.

There are thousands of people who are giving out their own personal details through Facebook and Twitter announcing to the world at large about their whereabouts and the like. In fact you will find that those people who are in fact afraid or hesitant to be involved in these sorts of activities are also not let off. In the sense even the most simplest of mobile phones are permanently in contact with the nearest transmitting stations letting out information to the respective mobile phone companies about where the user utilizing the device is. This data can afterwards be handed over to the police if required.

Mr. Sam Biddle who writes on various technologies and is the staff writer for Gizmodo.com is of the opinion that in recent times this question of privacy is becoming rather outmoded, and what people once upon a time thought was crazy and interfering, is now beginning to be considered usual. He says that though the feeling of unease may be there people are sort getting acclimatized to it. He states that this is especially so with the advent of smartphones. He adds that there are so many applications like "Foursquare" and "Find My Friends" that in fact are used so often by people that the line between whether you require privacy or not is gradually being rubbed off. He also adds that the newness of all these new technologies are making impervious to matters regarding privacy.

He goes on to explain that for the mobile phone company trailing a mobile phone user is part and parcel for their service to the user and for the user it's like a barter system. However this approach of relaxation is being taken advantage of by the governments and the law enforcement departments to keep a tab on the citizens.

The GPS tracking system can disclose a lot of information about the concerned person and what they consider important.

There was a GPS device fixed to the vehicle a drug peddler and owner of the Night club for almost a month in order for the police to gauge his movements. This was done to trap him. However, his lawyers contested that their client's Fourth Amendment rights were infringed upon. The State Prosecution contended that the accused had no right to privacy since his vehicle was located in a place open to the public. There was not much difference between trailing the accused and fixing a GPS mechanism to his car. If this matter was legally permitted, it could set the trend for mass tracking of different kinds of criminal activities.

These days, there is no need to plant tracking devices on the vehicles of suspected victims because they could be tracked via mobile phone trackers. Police officials can sit in their offices and utilize the GPS know-how to track more than one person for many days on end. This technology is all encompassing compared to older tracking techniques.

The GPS tracking system can in fact disclose plenty of information regarding the whereabouts of a person, who he is and what his values are. GPS know-how can be publicly criticized and the Supreme Court should bring a prohibition of the use of this device for stealthy tracking without a warrant.

However the police department is of a different opinion. They state that if the requirement of the police or other law enforcement departments is authentic and they feel that the suspect could probably get away before a warrant is issued then there should be some provision to utilize the tracking mechanism.

The technology should also be applicable for tracking a person via his mobile phone and if the mobile phone company can know the location of a particular person, what would be the difference when the police get to know the same details. Most people own mobile phones and most of the present day mobile phones have some sort of tracking device in them so mobile phone companies like Verizon and AT&T know where most people already are. If it is legally declared that the government should not conduct such surveillances, it would thwart all efforts of the police department to carry out covert scrutinizes of people they suspect of criminal activities.

In about a decade's time it would hardly be surprising if everyone is aware of where all the people they know are instantly and always.

The police are not planning to use the tracking device on each and every car in the region, they only use it when they suspect that a certain person needs to be tracked and for legally valid inquiries. The technologies are constantly changing and criminals are trying what ever they can to hoodwink the authorities, therefore the authorities too need to utilize technologies to be ahead of them.

There is a general misconception that GPS devices were allowed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and since cheap GPS mechanisms are easily available undercover surveillances were being utilized by public associations that included councils in the respective counties with no concern whatsoever about whether they are utilizing the legislation correctly.

As such the government ordered new rules in 2010 April that whoever was utilizing the tracking device needed to get the express permission of their senior officers who must be certain that the requirement is genui9ne and will not go against the Article 8 of the human Rights Act. In addition the authorized permission was required to hack communications in phones. About 1682 warrants had been issued the previous year in 2010.

Public bodies could attain other data without the authorization of the right people, like the time, date and the location of the calls made. It has been noted that in the year 2010, 552550 requests to this end had been made that year.

Social Media surveillance has been tightened by the metropolitan police since some months stating that it was of assistance to keep a tab on the riots in the summer that are aimed at prestigious events like the 2010 Olympics site. At the same time the Police Force in London is also utilizing the application that acts like a mobile phone network permitting it to hack connections and collect information about specific users in a particular area, for example, during a demonstration.

A majority of the crusaders for civil liberties vote for the police to be allowed to use this new and innovative technology that is currently very common and understand that the telecommunications companies are not spies. This software is beginning to become really common and difficult to be without as well as taking away privacy.

Of the month, Twitter was ordered to permit the Legal Department to get at the private information of three suspected followers of Wikileaks stating that they had practically given up their privacy when they registered to the micro blogging site.

The fact is that a person fundamentally has no privacy with one's online service provider and it still seems as if no one is really worried or bothered about it. It is rather surprising that there was no fighting back or whether it was because everyone now belonged to the Facebook era.

The point is that if no loud noise is made about the invasion of privacy to ensure that the politicians and telecom authorities were made aware, this would probably continue non-stop. Unless there was some tough legal ruling, it would not be astonishing if in the matter of the next decade each person will know the whereabouts of all their friends instantly. It may not even be considered a problem then and things would just continue to go along.