US immigration agency requests proposals for location data and advertising technology tools while data brokers expose military personnel movements through commercial phone tracking systems.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement this week requested information from advertising technology companies about "commercial Big Data and Ad Tech" products that would "directly support investigations activities," according to a January 23 filing on SAM.gov, the federal government's contract opportunity portal. The request arrived as investigative reporting exposed how data brokers sell location coordinates tracking US military and intelligence personnel to commercial buyers.
The request for information, designated FY26_RFI-Big Data & Ad Tech, establishes that ICE seeks platforms and data services from providers operating in the commercial advertising ecosystem. The Department of Homeland Security agency "is gathering information to better understand how the industry's commercial Big Data and Ad Tech providers can directly support investigations activities."
ICE operates under the Information Technology Division reporting to Homeland Security Investigations, the agency's investigative arm responsible for criminal investigations ranging from human trafficking to transnational crime. The RFI indicates ICE "is assessing the marketplace for existing and emerging commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) solutions comparable to large providers of investigative data and legal/risk analytics."
The timing coincides with WIRED's November 19, 2024 investigation revealing that anyone could purchase more than 3 billion phone coordinates tracking detailed movements of US military and intelligence workers in Germany. The data broker dataset exposed a device commuting to Lucius D. Clay Kaserne, the US Army's European headquarters and key intelligence hub, demonstrating how commercial location data reaches sensitive military installations. The Pentagon remained powerless to prevent such purchases despite security implications.
The RFI specifies that ICE wants to understand "the current state of Ad Tech compliant and location data services available to federal investigative and operational entities, considering regulatory constraints and privacy expectations." This language acknowledges tension between commercial surveillance capabilities and privacy frameworks while indicating federal interest in accessing tools developed for targeted advertising.
Companies must respond through a Microsoft Form submission portal and provide written documentation limited to 10 pages. According to the filing, "it is the Government's intent to select several respondents to this RFI to present a live demonstration of their operational capabilities, platforms and data services." The response deadline falls on February 2, 2026 at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time.
ICE emphasized that the filing represents market research rather than an immediate procurement. The document states this "is not a solicitation announcement" and "does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service." However, the request signals federal law enforcement examining commercial advertising technology for investigative deployment.
The agency specified it works with "increasing volumes of criminal, civil, and regulatory, administrative documentation from numerous internal and external sources." This operational context suggests ICE seeks tools capable of processing diverse data streams at scale - capabilities advertising technology companies developed for audience targeting and campaign optimization.
Advertising technology platforms have assembled comprehensive data collection infrastructure through mobile applications, connected devices, and web tracking. Data brokers aggregate location coordinates, purchase histories, browsing behavior, and demographic attributes to create detailed consumer profiles sold to advertisers.
These same capabilities enable surveillance when applied to law enforcement contexts. Location data collected through mobile advertising SDKs provides timestamped coordinates showing physical movements. Behavioral tracking assembles detailed activity profiles. Identity resolution techniques connect pseudonymous mobile advertising IDs to named individuals through cross-device matching and deterministic linkage.
The commercial data industry operates with limited oversight despite assembling surveillance infrastructure comparable to intelligence capabilities. California approved regulations requiring data brokers to process consumer deletion requests through a centralized platform starting August 2026, but federal privacy legislation remains stalled.
Data broker enforcement actions have revealed the industry's scope. California fined Datamasters $45,000 for selling consumer lists organized by health conditions including Alzheimer's, addiction, and ethnic backgrounds without proper registration. The Texas company marketed data on millions of consumers who remained unaware their information was being bought and sold.
The RFI's language about "regulatory constraints and privacy expectations" acknowledges legal frameworks constraining government surveillance while commercial entities face minimal restrictions. Constitutional protections limit warrantless government data collection, but purchasing the same information from private brokers may circumvent those safeguards.
GDPR enforcement in Europe has targeted workplace monitoring and surveillance technologies. France's highest court reduced Amazon's warehouse monitoring penalty from €32 million to €15 million, finding some productivity tracking systems legally justified while data retention violations remained. European courts have clarified that body cameras trigger immediate disclosure requirements under Article 13 GDPR.
American privacy frameworks remain fragmented across state jurisdictions. California's comprehensive privacy law established deletion rights and data broker registration, but most states lack equivalent protections. This regulatory patchwork enables data brokers to operate across jurisdictions while avoiding stringent oversight.
The commercial advertising ecosystem has resisted transparency requirements. Truthset research revealed IP address matching produces accuracy rates of 16% for email matches and 13% for postal matches, undermining industry claims about deterministic data precision. The findings exposed how billions in digital advertising spending relies on fundamentally inaccurate audience targeting.
Major advertising platforms have consolidated behind AI agents for autonomous campaign management. Amazon unified its DSP and sponsored ads console on November 10, launching AI agents the following day. Google made its Ads Advisor available to all English-language accounts on November 12. These platforms control massive data repositories assembled through advertising operations.
IAB Tech Lab released its Agentic RTB Framework for public comment on November 12, 2025, establishing standards for containerized programmatic auctions. The framework defines how AI agents participate in real-time bidding infrastructure, potentially expanding automated data processing capabilities that government agencies could access through commercial partnerships.
Ad tech consolidation has concentrated digital advertising revenue among the top 10 technology companies, reaching 80.8 percent market share. This concentration creates chokepoints where government access to a few platforms could expose comprehensive consumer surveillance data.
The advertising technology industry debates agentic AI protocols amid transparency concerns. Six companies introduced the Ad Context Protocol on October 15, 2025, positioning it as unified infrastructure for AI agents managing campaigns across platforms. Critics questioned whether new protocols address foundational problems or simply add complexity to an opaque ecosystem.
Commercial advertising technology developed to influence consumer behavior through micro-targeted messaging. The same infrastructure enables detailed population surveillance when government agencies gain access. Mobile advertising SDKs embedded in hundreds of thousands of applications collect location data continuously, assembling movement patterns across billions of devices.
Data brokers purchase raw location data from application developers and aggregate coordinates into detailed mobility datasets. These products, originally marketed to retailers and advertisers for foot traffic analysis, provide comprehensive surveillance capabilities when applied to investigations. The datasets include timestamps, GPS coordinates accurate to within meters, and persistent device identifiers enabling long-term tracking.
European regulators launched antitrust investigations on December 9, 2025 examining whether Google violated EU competition rules by using publisher content for AI purposes without appropriate compensation. However, data collection for advertising faces fewer restrictions than content usage, creating regulatory gaps enabling surveillance infrastructure development.
The advertising technology industry operates through complex supply chains involving thousands of companies exchanging data through real-time bidding systems. Each programmatic advertisement request broadcasts user data to dozens of platforms simultaneously, creating opportunities for data leakage and unauthorized access. Government agencies seeking investigative tools could exploit this fragmented ecosystem.
ICE's interest in "operational platforms and data services" suggests seeking turnkey solutions rather than developing internal systems. Commercial advertising technology offers sophisticated audience segmentation, identity resolution, location analytics, and behavioral prediction capabilities developed through billions in private investment.
Location data services marketed to advertisers include geofencing tools that trigger alerts when devices enter defined areas, foot traffic attribution connecting store visits to advertising exposure, and mobility pattern analysis identifying commuting routes and frequented locations. These capabilities translate directly to surveillance applications for tracking persons of interest.
Behavioral analytics platforms process browsing histories, application usage, purchase records, and content consumption to infer interests, affiliations, and intent. Advertising technology applies machine learning to predict future behavior based on historical patterns - capabilities equally applicable to threat assessment and investigative prioritization.
Identity resolution services connect pseudonymous identifiers across devices, browsers, and applications to unified consumer profiles. Commercial providers claim accuracy rates enabling cross-device tracking, though research demonstrates significant precision limitations. Nevertheless, probabilistic matching provides investigative leads even with imperfect accuracy.
The RFI's acknowledgment of "regulatory constraints and privacy expectations" highlights tension between government surveillance authorities and civil liberties protections. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence restricts warrantless searches, but purchasing commercially available data may circumvent constitutional safeguards designed to limit government intrusion.
The third-party doctrine, established in 1970s Supreme Court precedents, holds that individuals lack reasonable privacy expectations in information voluntarily shared with third parties. This framework enabled warrantless acquisition of phone records and bank statements. Modern advertising technology extends this doctrine to comprehensive behavioral surveillance assembled through hundreds of corporate intermediaries.
However, recent jurisprudence has questioned third-party doctrine application to modern technology. The Supreme Court's 2018 Carpenter v. United States decision required warrants for historical cell site location data despite carriers collecting it for business purposes. The ruling acknowledged that comprehensive location tracking reveals intimate details about private lives deserving constitutional protection.
Commercial data purchases by government agencies occupy uncertain legal territory. While the Carpenter decision addressed direct access to telecommunications records, purchasing equivalent data from brokers who obtained it from application developers raises unanswered questions about constitutional limits. ICE's request suggests federal agencies actively exploring this legal gray area.
GDPR enforcement in Europe provides contrast with American regulatory gaps. The European Commission prepared substantial amendments to GDPR through the Digital Omnibus initiative, proposing changes to personal data definitions and processing requirements particularly concerning artificial intelligence development. However, American federal privacy legislation remains stalled despite bipartisan recognition of surveillance capitalism concerns.
Advertising technology companies face decisions about government partnerships carrying reputation risks alongside revenue opportunities. Major platforms have avoided direct associations with surveillance applications, but smaller specialized vendors increasingly target government contracts.
The commercial surveillance industry includes established players like Palantir Technologies alongside data brokers marketing consumer information to diverse buyers. Advertising technology platforms possess equivalent capabilities but maintain commercial positioning distinct from government surveillance associations. ICE's RFI tests whether ad tech companies will embrace law enforcement markets.
Privacy-focused businesses have emerged responding to regulatory pressure and consumer concerns. Usercentrics announced on January 14, 2026 that it acquired a startup governing AI system data access through Model Context Protocol, positioning as the first major privacy platform extending consent mechanisms into AI-driven workflows.
However, the broader industry resists meaningful transparency and user control. Platforms profit from comprehensive data collection enabling micro-targeted advertising. Government contracts offer additional revenue while leveraging existing surveillance infrastructure. Economic incentives favor cooperation over privacy protection absent stringent regulatory requirements.
The RFI's emphasis on "commercial off-the-shelf solutions" indicates ICE seeks existing products rather than custom development. This approach enables rapid deployment of surveillance capabilities without lengthy procurement processes or public oversight typical of major government technology projects.
The intersection of commercial advertising technology and government surveillance creates operational security challenges for military and intelligence personnel. WIRED's investigation demonstrated how data brokers sell location coordinates tracking movements to sensitive facilities. ICE's interest in the same infrastructure suggests multiple federal agencies exploring commercial surveillance tools.
Military installations, intelligence facilities, and sensitive government operations become visible through commercial location data despite security protocols. Personnel using smartphones with advertising SDKs embedded in applications leak precise coordinates to data brokers who sell the information to unknown buyers. Traditional operational security focuses on communications security and physical access control while commercial surveillance bypasses both.
The Pentagon's inability to prevent data broker sales of military personnel tracking data highlights regulatory gaps enabling security threats. Foreign intelligence services could purchase the same datasets revealing personnel identities, duty locations, and movement patterns. Commercial availability makes sensitive operational data accessible to adversaries through simple purchases.
ICE's request for information about ad tech capabilities suggests federal agencies recognize commercial surveillance potential. However, the same capabilities threatening military operational security could support investigative operations. This duality creates policy tensions between security concerns and law enforcement interests.
Federal acquisition of commercial surveillance capabilities raises questions about congressional oversight and budget appropriations. Traditional intelligence collection programs face extensive authorization requirements and periodic reviews. Commercial data purchases occupy regulatory gray areas with unclear authorization frameworks.
Intelligence agencies operate under authorities established through National Security Act provisions and subsequent amendments. Law enforcement agencies like ICE operate under different statutory frameworks focused on criminal investigations rather than foreign intelligence collection. However, commercial data sources blur these distinctions by providing comprehensive population surveillance applicable to both contexts.
Congressional appropriations committees typically review major technology acquisitions through detailed budget justifications. Commercial data purchases may proceed through general operating expenses or investigative line items without specific oversight. This funding opacity enables surveillance capability expansion without explicit legislative authorization.
The RFI's designation as market research rather than solicitation suggests ICE conducting preliminary exploration. However, market research often precedes formal procurements. Companies responding to information requests position themselves for subsequent contract opportunities when agencies move from research to acquisition phases.
European regulatory frameworks provide instructive contrast with American surveillance capitalism. GDPR establishes comprehensive individual rights including access, correction, deletion, and restrictions on processing. Data protection authorities actively enforce requirements through investigations and substantial penalties.
However, enforcement faces challenges balancing privacy protection against industry pressure. Former ECB chief Mario Draghi demanded GDPR cuts and AI Act implementation pauses at a Brussels conference, arguing regulations create excessive costs for European companies. The European Commission proposed modest changes reducing record-keeping requirements for smaller companies, but comprehensive reforms remain controversial.
National security exemptions exist within GDPR allowing member states to restrict rights when necessary for security purposes. These provisions enable European intelligence and law enforcement agencies to process personal data despite privacy protections. However, exemptions require specific legal authorization rather than commercial purchases circumventing protections entirely.
Belgium's privacy regulator announced in December 2025 it was shifting enforcement resources toward large-scale advertising technology platforms and data brokers. This strategic reorientation acknowledges that systemic surveillance infrastructure poses greater privacy threats than individual website violations.
IAB Tech Lab attempts establishing technical standards for agentic AI systems in advertising, but governance mechanisms lack enforcement authority. The organization operates as industry self-regulatory body rather than independent overseer. Standards adoption remains voluntary, with major platforms free to pursue proprietary approaches.
Technical protocols like OpenRTB define how programmatic advertising systems exchange data during real-time auctions. These specifications enable interoperability but contain minimal privacy protections. Bid requests broadcast user data to numerous parties simultaneously without meaningful consent mechanisms or purpose limitations.
The advertising technology ecosystem operates through complex contractual relationships distributing liability across supply chain participants. Publishers embed advertising tags loading code from multiple intermediaries. Each party in the chain disclaims responsibility for downstream data practices while claiming compliance with privacy policies and regulations. This diffusion of accountability enables surveillance infrastructure expansion without clear responsibility.
Self-regulatory frameworks like Digital Advertising Alliance principles establish voluntary standards for interest-based advertising. However, compliance remains optional and enforcement mechanisms lack meaningful penalties. Industry groups resist binding requirements preferring self-governance avoiding regulatory oversight.
ICE's request for information signals federal law enforcement systematically exploring commercial surveillance tools rather than isolated experiments. The inquiry's scope - covering both big data platforms and advertising technology specifically - indicates understanding of how these systems work together enabling comprehensive population monitoring.
As AI agents become central to advertising infrastructure, automated systems will make autonomous decisions about data collection, audience targeting, and campaign optimization. These capabilities translate directly to automated surveillance when applied to investigations. Machine learning systems processing behavioral data at scale could identify patterns and predict actions relevant to law enforcement interests.
The convergence of commercial surveillance capitalism and government investigative authority creates a comprehensive monitoring apparatus operating largely outside traditional constitutional constraints. Current legal frameworks address government data collection through warrant requirements while commercial data assembly faces minimal restrictions. Purchasing commercially available information may circumvent Fourth Amendment protections designed to limit government intrusion into private lives.
Policy responses could take several directions. Comprehensive federal privacy legislation could establish baseline restrictions on commercial data collection and use applicable to both private entities and government purchases. Such frameworks exist in Europe through GDPR but remain politically contentious in the United States despite bipartisan privacy concerns.
Alternatively, judicial interpretation could extend constitutional protections to commercial data purchases by government agencies. Courts could determine that Carpenter v. United States principles limiting warrantless location data access apply equally to data purchased from brokers. This approach would require case-by-case litigation rather than comprehensive legislative solutions.
Congressional oversight could require explicit authorization and appropriations for commercial surveillance tool acquisitions. Intelligence committees could establish review processes for data broker contracts similar to authorities governing other collection programs. Such oversight would provide transparency and accountability currently absent from commercial data purchases.
The RFI's designation as market research provides political cover while ICE gauges commercial surveillance capabilities. However, information gathering typically precedes acquisition decisions. Companies investing resources responding to government requests expect subsequent contracting opportunities justifying those investments.
The specific framing around "Ad Tech compliant and location data services" demonstrates sophisticated understanding of commercial surveillance infrastructure. This terminology suggests ICE consulted with industry participants or technical experts before drafting the request. Government agencies developing procurement requirements typically engage preliminary market research identifying potential vendors and capabilities.
The February 2 response deadline provides limited time for comprehensive submissions, suggesting ICE expects straightforward presentations from established vendors rather than novel solutions requiring extensive development. This timeline aligns with commercial off-the-shelf product marketing rather than custom government projects.
Selected respondents will present "live demonstrations of their operational capabilities," according to the filing. This format enables ICE to evaluate commercial surveillance tools directly rather than relying on written proposals. Demonstrations provide opportunities for vendors to showcase features potentially relevant to investigations while avoiding detailed public documentation about specific capabilities.
The Microsoft Form submission portal streamlines responses but limits transparency about who participates. Unlike traditional government procurements publishing respondent lists and proposal summaries, information requests may proceed with minimal public visibility. This opacity enables government-industry discussions about surveillance capabilities without triggering civil liberties scrutiny typical of controversial programs.
Who: US Immigration and Customs Enforcement through its Homeland Security Investigations division requested information from advertising technology companies and big data providers about commercial surveillance tools applicable to investigations. The request involves companies operating programmatic advertising platforms, data brokers selling location coordinates and behavioral profiles, and analytics providers processing large datasets.
What: The request for information seeks operational platforms and data services from commercial advertising technology providers that "directly support investigations activities." According to the SAM.gov filing, ICE wants to understand how commercial big data and ad tech providers can support federal investigative operations. The agency specified interest in "Ad Tech compliant and location data services available to federal investigative and operational entities, considering regulatory constraints and privacy expectations." This includes commercial off-the-shelf solutions for investigative data, legal analytics, and location tracking capabilities developed for targeted advertising.
When: ICE published the request on January 23, 2026 at 1:00 PM Eastern Standard Time on SAM.gov. Companies must respond by February 2, 2026 at 10:00 AM Eastern Standard Time. The request becomes inactive on February 3, 2026. The timing coincided with November 2024 investigative reporting exposing how data brokers sell location coordinates tracking US military and intelligence personnel movements, demonstrating commercial surveillance capabilities relevant to government interests.
Where: The request originated from ICE's Information Technology Division within the Department of Homeland Security, with contracting office located at 500 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20024. Selected respondents will present live demonstrations of operational capabilities, though the filing does not specify demonstration locations. The commercial surveillance tools ICE seeks operate globally through mobile applications, advertising platforms, and data broker networks assembling comprehensive population monitoring infrastructure.
Why: The request reflects federal law enforcement interest in leveraging commercial surveillance infrastructure developed for targeted advertising to support criminal investigations. ICE stated it "is assessing the marketplace for existing and emerging commercial off-the-shelf solutions comparable to large providers of investigative data and legal/risk analytics." The agency works with "increasing volumes of criminal, civil, and regulatory, administrative documentation from numerous internal and external sources," suggesting need for tools processing diverse data streams at scale. Commercial advertising technology offers sophisticated capabilities including location tracking, behavioral analysis, identity resolution, and predictive analytics developed through billions in private investment. However, the request raises questions about Fourth Amendment constraints on warrantless surveillance, operational security implications for military personnel, and regulatory gaps enabling government access to comprehensive consumer data assembled by private companies facing minimal privacy restrictions.
