Print
The Power of Cell Phone Data in the Age of Secrecy
In a world where billion-dollar federal agencies seem to fumble basic investigative duties, private citizens with a laptop and a credit card are uncovering what the FBI either can’t—or won’t.
The cases of Jeffrey Epstein and Thomas Crooks offer a sobering look at how location data, sold by commercial data brokers, is now becoming a powerful tool for grassroots investigations.
The Epstein Raid That Found Everything—and Lost It All
Jeffrey Epstein’s arrest in July 2019 launched one of the most infamous FBI raids in modern memory. The agency, led by Special Agent Kelly McGuire, broke into Epstein’s 19,000-square-foot Manhattan townhouse with a crowbar in hand, a camera ready, and even an industrial cutting saw to open his safe. They found hard drives, CDs, money, passports, and photographic evidence of underage victims. But one crucial thing they forgot to bring? A warrant to seize any of it.
According to sworn testimony by McGuire during Ghislaine Maxwell’s trial, the agents photographed the evidence, then left. Days later, when they returned with a valid warrant, the safe had been emptied.
Despite the high-profile nature of the case, this basic procedural failure led to the loss of potentially explosive materials. Over the next five years, the FBI—with 35,000 employees and an $11 billion annual budget—brought exactly zero charges against any of Epstein’s alleged clients.
A Magazine Outpaces the FBI
Enter Wired Magazine, with a staff of just 180 people. Using cell phone location data legally purchased from a data broker, they were able to track more than 200 cell phones that visited Epstein’s private Caribbean island from 2016 to 2019.
This data didn’t just confirm who was on the island—it mapped exactly where each phone went and how long it stayed. Once those phones left the island, the data revealed the visitors’ home and work addresses across the United States.
While Wired declined to release names or addresses (rightly noting that not all visitors may have been clients), they nonetheless accomplished what the FBI hasn’t: proof that specific people were there. Due to stricter privacy laws, the same analysis couldn’t be conducted for European visitors—but the implication is clear. Private citizens now have the means to expose what government investigators either ignore or shield.
From Cold Cases to Crowdsourced Investigations
The same pattern emerged in the case of Thomas Crooks, the young man who attempted to assassinate President Trump. While public interest in Crooks plummeted just days after the event, the FBI’s interest seemed to vanish even faster.
In fact, less than two weeks after the attempt, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified under oath that he wasn’t even sure if Trump had been struck by a bullet.
Once again, it was private investigators—not the FBI—who picked up the trail. The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project purchased location data tied to every electronic device that had visited both Crooks’ home and workplace in the year prior to the attack.
They tracked these devices not just to local businesses and public areas, but even across state lines, to places like Butler, Pennsylvania, and a neighborhood just three blocks from an FBI office in Washington, DC.
No accusations were made about what these visits mean. But the implications are serious. At a minimum, the location history raises troubling questions that no government agency has answered.
The Surveillance Paradox: Disturbing and Necessary?
The idea that your phone’s location can be bought and sold like candy is, quite frankly, disturbing. These are not government subpoenas or legal requests; they are cash transactions that put your movements into the hands of anyone willing to pay. And yet, it’s that same mechanism that allows citizens to uncover what the public has a right to know when official channels fail.
Congress has long refused to crack down on the data broker industry. Despite growing concerns about personal privacy, this market for location data has only expanded. And in a twist of irony, the very tools used to spy on ordinary people are now helping those same people investigate the elite.
Should Citizens Fight Fire with Fire?
It raises a difficult question: If location data is going to remain commercially available, should private citizens start using it more actively? Could we learn who is visiting powerful politicians, media moguls, or tech billionaires?
What would the cell phone history of a House Speaker or a Supreme Court Justice reveal? If we followed the devices of those with power, would we uncover flip-flops, backroom deals, or even conspiracies?
For example, tracking who visited Speaker Mike Johnson in the days before he reversed his stance on requiring warrants for FISA surveillance could shed light on unseen pressures. If nothing else, such data might provide much-needed transparency in a world where public officials often act without public accountability.
A Tool with Consequences
To be clear, this article is not a call to weaponize private surveillance. There is a genuine moral tension between respecting privacy and demanding accountability. But as long as data brokers are legally selling this information, perhaps the more important question is not should we use it—but how we use it.
The stories of Epstein and Crooks illustrate two disturbing trends: federal incompetence or willful blindness, and the rising ability of private citizens to do the work once trusted to government. In both cases, location data served as a flashlight in the dark. It didn’t solve the case, but it lit up the path others refused to take.
The Road Ahead
Should more citizen-led investigations be launched using these tools? Who should be investigated—and for what? These are questions we’ll all have to wrestle with, especially as technology keeps outpacing both ethics and law.
Until Congress changes the rules, location data will remain a double-edged sword. It can violate your privacy—or help you reclaim your power.
So what should we do next? That’s not just a question for legislators or journalists anymore. It’s a question for all of us.
