dennis ken any. he is a professor -- kenney. he is professor of criminal justice at the john jay college of criminal justice. mr. kenney, you have been listening to this conversation. what are your initial thoughts? >> guest: first of all, what she describes is completely accurate. and from a law enforcement perspective, i think that a good deal of the capability she describe inside some ways can be very helpful. my immediate reaction, however, is that the focus on limiting just law enforcement, i think, would be misplaced because the notion that you can sell that information -- that the carriers can sell that information to law enforcement agencies, they can sell it to private vendors as well. and i think right now that the usage of that data the is pretty unclear who can get it, who can use it and so forth. there's commercially-available apps now that you can get on your iphone that will enable you to track not just your phone, but other people's phones as well. >> host: and do you see, do you see where the aclu is coming from

. >> dennis kenney has more than 35 years of experience in criminal justice, including serving as a florida police officer. he is a past editor of "the american journal of police" and current editor of "police quarterly." thank you for being on the show. what did you hear from our conversation? >> based on that conversation, i think there actually is common ground between people are concerned about civil liberties and law enforcement agents. the aclu, for example, is not opposed to cell phone tracking in any categorical since. we think that there are circumstances in which it is a perfectly appropriate and indeed valuable tool. the sticking point is what standard the government has to meet in order to engage in cell phone tracking. our strong belief is that only by having to go to a mutual magistrate to have your request to engage in self on tracking review by someone who can look at it objectively and being held to the probable cause standard -- only through those equirements will americans' privacy interests be met. the point is to make sure that innocent american privacy rights are not v