Cell Phones, Missing Persons, and Privacy

An anonymous reader sends in a Seattle PI story about the use of cell phone records in missing-person cases. Typically, phone companies turn over location information to police without a warrant if one of their customers is reported missing; the police need only to state that the person may be in danger. In any criminal case, a warrant from a judge would be required before the telcos divulged any information. While in some poster-child cases lives have been saved as a result of this practice, it seems like a class-action lawsuit waiting to happen. It is not a crime to go missing.

It is not a crime to go missing.

[Shadow Wrought (586631)]

No but it is a crime if someone has taken you against your will. They're not investigating the person missing for criminal activity but because they think that they have been victimized. Privacy is great, perspective is even better.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167)]

A few weeks ago I had to renew my CPR certification. We had to go over "complied consent". I imagine the same concept applies to cases like this. If the situation is life or death and the victim or their guardians do not decline, it is assumed that they would want any and all help within the ability of the rescuer.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[compro01 (777531)]

Maybe the term is different where you are, but I'm fairly sure that's "implied consent".

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[Jake73 (306340)]

Perhaps this should be the the impetus for a new "contract with society".

In the event that I am lost and my cell phone or GPS bracelet or other tracking devices are the only way to find and save me, I agree to just sit there and die. In exchange, I want my privacy back and do not want such records made available to nearly anyone who asks.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[sqrt(2) (786011)]

But you're not able to make that distinction beforehand, and if you can then you should have no trouble proving it to a judge. The ethical dilemma is that, if a person goes missing they may or may not be in danger so if you violate their privacy by tracking them down with their cellphone you're only justified if they were in danger. If they just decided they wanted to leave their town without telling anyone, you've committed a huge breach of their personal privacy for nothing. I usually find it best to err on the side of privacy rather than safety. There's also the precedent it sets of cooperation by the phone companies (as if we didn't have enough of that already) with the government without a warrant.

If there is need for phone records to be accessed, we have appropriate channels that law enforcement needs to go through to obtain such information.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[x2A (858210)]

If you're really that desperate for privacy, turn your phone off! For anyone not suffering delusions of grandure (yeah so satalites can read your clothes labels from space, but who thinks they're really that interesting?) and realises that we buy phones because most of us are social creatures rather than paranoid conspiracy nuts, and actually like being able to make contact with other human beings.

"I usually find it best to err on the side of privacy rather than safety"

Well, I have friends, we share our lives with each other, and would much prefer we look out for each other than live our lives in fear and have to hide from each other. Maybe we're just unique like that.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[Stanislav_J (947290)]

.....we buy phones because most of us are social creatures rather than paranoid conspiracy nuts, and actually like being able to make contact with other human beings.

Not necessarily. The reason -- and the ONLY reason -- I even own a cellphone is to keep tabs on my 80-year old disabled shut-in mother (for whom I am a full-time caretaker) and enable her to contact me in an emergency if I am out running errands. If it weren't for that need, I wouldn't have the slightest interest in the damn thing. Unlike most people nowadays, I like being alone with my thoughts, my music, or whatever while out and about, and do not have the compulsive need to be constantly talking to anyone about anything at all times. Yes, I have friends (very few -- I look for quality, not quantity), but I chat with them in the privacy and comfort of my own home, maybe once or twice a week for an hour or so. I do not have the need to be yakking with them for hours on end about trivia while riding the bus or shopping at the supermarket or eating lunch out, nor the desire to broadcast those personal conversations to all within earshot.

To me, all these modern devices have made communication too easy and cheapened it, lowering it to the level of a nervous habit akin to chewing gum. We have vastly increased the ability to communicate, yet added nothing of substance or value to that communication. And I believe we are worse off as a society because of it.

Feel free to mod me down as "-1 old fogy."

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[Foolicious (895952)]

You really do sound like a bitter old man. Darn kids.

So mod down -1 old fogie viewing past with rose-colored glasses. Also mod down -1 too much justification about "quantity vs. quality" of friendships. Also mod down -1 would use cellphone for which supposedly has for "ONLY" one reason for many, many other reasons if an emergency arose, or maybe even if wanted a pizza on the way home from work thus proving it's not so bad to use a cellphone sometimes. That is unless, of course, carry-out pizzas have some how cheapened the entire food experience and dining, in which case he wouldn't do so.

In all seriousness, everybody talks about email, texting and cellphone use as "cheapening" communication, but it's merely changed it. Communication isn't like money where the primary basis is quantity, and the more you have, the less you usually appreciate it. I like being able to text my wife or friends with quick updates. I like being able to order food from my favorite places conveniently if I am out and about. Does this cheapen anything? No. It's not like I was pining for a deep, face-to-face conversation with the kid working the phones and the fryer at the takeout joint. And I don't try to have deep conversations with my wife using texts. But I just might have a deep conversation with her using our evil, communication-wrecking cellphones!

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[dreamchaser (49529)]

"I don't understand the complains about people talking on their phones. What if the other person they were talking to was right there? Still talking about the same things, still as much in your ear space... "

Speaking as someone who loves his mobile devices, I think you're missing the point on this bit. It's very annoying because it's LOUDER. When two people are engaged in conversation in person they tend to speak in lower tones, FAR lower than most cellphone talkers. It's rude and annoying and I'm glad some establishments are cracking down on the practice. There's a time and place to have a nice phone chat; while I am crammed into a seat next to you in a movie, eater, bus, or plane are not those times and places. Unless of course you want me to use your phone on you as a suppository :)

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[geekoid (135745)]

Hmm, I don't notice anyone talking louder. Usually it's about the same tone, sometime quitter.
People who tlak loud, talk loud. Cell phone communication has gotten to the point where whispers can be heard. This isn't 1994.

"..eater, bus, or plane "
You have no expectation of silence in those areas.

So your compliant actually isn't against cell phones, it's against loud people. Loud being 'more amplitude then a normal conversation.'

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[exploder (196936)]

Or a Bat-signal.

Bit of a false dichotomy

[Moraelin (679338)]

Well, I have friends, we share our lives with each other, and would much prefer we look out for each other than live our lives in fear and have to hide from each other. Maybe we're just unique like that.

Well, that's a bit of a false dichotomy there. There are about 6 billion shades of grey between 100% social, sharing every single moment with everyone, and 100% paranoid, affraid of everything that moves.

And even for a given person there are nuances in how much you trust them. It doesn't have to be all or nothing, either you broadcast every waking moment and detail of your life to them, or you fear them and hide from them.

E.g., I trust mom, but I wouldn't tell her my passwords. I don't "hide" from her, I don't "fear" her, and I certainly don't have any "delusions of grandeur", but it's just something that she doesn't need to know and accidentally end up telling everyone she knows. (For all her good intentions, she _is_ a terminal chatterbox and sometimes her mouth gets a whole lap ahead of her judgment.)

E.g., I trust grandma, but I wouldn't necessarily tell her each time I took a taxi to the railway station. She's seen a great depression as a child, and then a war, and still has certain... immutable ideas about money management, which would make the stereotypical Scotsman look positively spendthrift. So I'm just avoiding an unnecessary talk about how not only it's an abomination to blow a few euros on the taxi.

And from there it's even more shades of grey when it comes to who is entitled to know what. If you get far enough from there, some people don't need to know anything about me. A few people _are_ to be avoided.

And the implication is starting to somewhat bother me that, basically, if you want any privacy at all, then you're one of those guys that "live our lives in fear and have to hide from each other." It's just called being realistic enough, not being a paranoid hermit.

So let's lay that fallacy to rest already. So you have friends and talk to them. Even on the phone. Big deal. We all do. So you look out for each other. Big deal. Again, we all do. It still doesn't automatically overrule all and every privacy concerns. You don't need to be paranoid and afraid to not broadcast every moment of your life, you just need to be realistic enough.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[dave1791 (315728)]

If you want REAL privacy, dig that old phone out of the drawer and pay cash for a pre-pay sim.

I'm no fan of nannying government or warrantless searches or secret warrants, but I find your position too fundamentalist for my taste; especially when your solution is so easy.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[cheater512 (783349)]

If you've been kidnapped, I believe the whole idea is to let the authorities find you.

This only becomes a problem if they start telling the telcos that Mr Xyz is missing when he isnt.
And then the lawsuit would be quite straight forward.
Mr Xyz knows that he wasnt missing and can probably back that up.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[eggnoglatte (1047660)]

Wow, so all criminals have to do is make sure their victims are never found, thus making it illegal for police and others to even start searching? Brilliant!

The consequences of finding somebody who doesn't want to be found are much, much less severe than the consequences of not finding somebody who needs help, or who has already been murdered.

And by the way: if you REALLY want to get lost, and don't dump your cellphone, credit cards, etc. then you are a moron, and deserve to be found.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[Reziac (43301)]

Is there anything in law where if the authorities go looking for a missing person, and find them, the "missing" person can state that they WANT to remain "lost" and the authorities will have to honour that??

(I mean under normal, nonthreatening conditions, not just battered women's shelters and the like, where the assumption is already that you wish to remain "lost".)

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[hughk (248126)]

I believe this the approach of the Salvation Army, who, although a God Squad do some good work amongst the down and outs and operate a very good missing persons service. Their approach on finding someone is to tell them they are being looked for and by whom and then to ask if it is ok to pass back the news that the person is in good health and then at the 'missing' person's choice, put them in contact with the person reporting them missing.

The thing is that the Sally Army do a personal visit to check things are ok. A mobile company calling you to find out whether you want to be found is too liable to abuse. That is, you could be kidnapped by a cult and forced to say you were ok and nobody would be the wiser.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[iamacat (583406)]

Most warrants are issued when there is no proof of criminal activity, only a realistic possibility ("probable cause") that it may be occurring. Think of it, if a crime is already proven, why waste time and money searching for more evidence?

If a person is missing without living a reasonable explanation, it's more likely than not that a crime has been committed. Most people at least leave a note or make a phone call if they run away from their spouse. Running away as a minor, from your own children or from a debt is a crime by itself. Given the massive loss of public resources otherwise, the law should probably require a signed note, without indication of new address needed, if someone just wants to be left alone.

Until then, if an adult with no outstanding obligation is found by police but does not wish to go back to his/her family, their whereabouts should not be revealed to any private citizens and their cell phone records should not be examined without a probable cause for investigating other crimes.

Community Caretaking

[Valdrax (32670)]

Police perform searches that would normally be in violation of the 4th Amendment if they were looking for evidence or suspects all the time to check up on people on behalf of worried family members. This is known as a "community caretaking search," and was established as a legal basis for searches in Cady v. Dombrowski.

It's worth noting that 4th Amendment rights almost entirely enforced via evidence suppression motions in criminal trials. If you aren't on trial for a crime, then generally you have no real legal way of challenging a search.

Re:Community Caretaking

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

I believe that you took that example out of context. For example, a family might consent to have their son's or daughter's room searched (even if over 18) in order to find clues to their whereabouts... but this is a very different matter.

Further, most 4th Amendment cases are probably brought up in criminal cases because that is where the question arises most often! That doesn't mean that challenging an illegal search is pointless or "not done".

I was personally searched by police, illegally and in public, for a reason that would have still been illegal even it had not turned out to be imaginary. Believe me, when it happens to you, you don't take it so goddamned lightly!

"community caretaking" bedamned. If they searched MY telephone records without a warrant I would sue their asses off, and I think I would have a pretty good chance of making it stick.

Re:

[syousef (465911)]

As much as I value and love my privacy, I'd want someone to investigate if I went missing without a trace. Now once I'd been found if I said I didn't want to reveal my whereabouts I'd hope that was respected.

The only issue I see here is the potential for abuse. A police officer could lie to get the records and wouldn't be questioned about it. What if that police officer is corrupt? Sounds like a good way to find someone who was trying to dob them in and silence them. I bet other slashdotters can think of p

Re:

[juventasone (517959)]

Made me think of "Into The Wild".

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[x2A (858210)]

Lets say I'm just a crazy person who's attracted to bright lights, and the feeling of a sharp knife going though soft flesh... better turn off all your lights too then!

Re:

[Eskarel (565631)]

Just because you don't need a warrant doesn't mean you can do anything you want it'll still be logged that you made the request and if you start making a habit of it, folks are going to notice.

If you want to worry about being stalked via your mobile phone, be worried about the phone company employees not the police.

I don't trust law enforcement any more than the next guy, but so long as they're logging the requests somewhere and looking for suspicious patterns I don't see a problem.

Re:It is not a crime to go missing.

[smolloy (1250188)]

How do you decide i have been missing against my will?

You can't. That's why they have to make a judgment call, and, in many cases, they will attempt to err on the side of caution

By your logic i must inform the local police office about my whereabouts all the time.

Not at all. By his logic, if you go missing, they'll try to find you using your cell phone. If you don't want to be found, just switch it off. If you want to ensure your privacy, don't carry a cell phone at all.

Didn't the Gestapo have the same requirement in occupied France?

I'm pretty surprised how quickly Godwin was invoked here!!

Really hard to get worked up about this

[WK2 (1072560)]

It's really hard to get worked up about this. If someone is missing, the police look for them. It's great that they use all of their resources. Privacy is great, but so is staying alive.

It's not a crime to go missing... BUT

[TubeSteak (669689)]

The police can dispense with warrants and procedure in cases where they believe immenent harm is possible.

Also, since we're reading about this in the "Seattle PI", it's worth mentioning that suicide is illegal in the State of Washington and the phone they were tracking belonged to a suicidal young man.

Re:

[violet16 (700870)]

it's worth mentioning that suicide is illegal in the State of Washington

and attracts the death penalty.

Given the fact that they don't get a warrant...

[Discordia115 (1284834)]

it's unlikely that the police would be able to use any unsavory information they uncovered in any sort of criminal trial. Given that, I can't really get too upset about it.

Re:

[PPH (736903)]

The police don't use the information. They give, or sell it to someone else.

Think industrial espionage. Your competitor wants to keep tabs on you, see who you are meeting with and when. They know someone on the police force who needs a couple of bucks and can use their credentials to get tracking info. and call data.

I dunno, I can see it.

[jesdynf (42915)]

"Where is this person, we believe him to be in danger" is not "we wish to covertly monitor this person", nor is it "reveal to us this person's whereabouts for the last six months". The police *should* be able to locate people who are believed to be missing, and I'm not very worried about granting them broad powers to go about it. This is a useful task. Assuming the telco isn't enjoined to secrecy, this seems balanced to me.

Yes, it's theoretically possible to parlay powers granted that way into other, less useful acts, but... look, I'm no apologist; I think that many things they do are thoughtless, wicked, and treasonous, but they do have their uses, and in this instance? I'd need to see a case of it being abused, and I'd need it proven that existing case law wasn't sufficient to redress the abuse, before I got too excited about it.

Going Off The Grid 101

[edeloso (665632)]

I thought lesson 1 was "Dump the cell phone."

Re:

[jamesh (87723)]

That's exactly right. Police can look out for your car registration number (even easier if you go through a tollway), look through cctv systems for your face, monitor the use of your credit cards, and probably a heap of other things. Maybe they need a warrant for some of them but not for just putting out a call to keep an eye out for your car registration number. It's not like your phone is some sacred thing.

If you really wanted to go 'missing', maybe try telling someone first, just to let them know that yo

Re:

[snl2587 (1177409)]

Are there any states or countries where it is a crime to go missing?

I certainly hope not anywhere in the "free world".

As someone on a Search & Rescue team

[nick0909 (721613)]

I have gone out on searches for missing people, including ones that have basically called 911 and was able to say basically "I am stuck in the snow and dieing" but they had no idea where they were. This was before most cellphones had a GPS, and our 911 center had no idea where the call came from. Calling the cell company, we had the Sheriff on the phone along with the parents of the missing kids, and the parents paid the bill, and AT&T would not release the location info. Their friend had another phone provider (MCI? I can't remember it was so long ago), and they released the last location ping to us immediately. We also were able to quickly pull the last credit card purchase from them and figured out between their gas and snack runs and their last cellphone tower used they were probably in a certain camping area. Sure enough, a airplane spotted them shortly after we re-focussed our efforts and a few hours after that the helicopters and ground teams on snowmobiles (of which I was one) reached the party of 6 and was able to pull them all back out to their families. While I am huge on privacy and a person's rights, I also was infuriated when the cell company that was used to make the 911 call for help refused to release the location information to us. I am sure they could have seen that 911 was recently dialed, and having the family members on the phone as well pleading with them to release it to us, they refused. There may be a class action suit on the way for releasing private information, but what about if they don't release it and the victims die? Does the family then sue the cell company for having life-saving information and withholding it, essentially preventing or hampering rescue efforts? Is this the same as not yielding to a fire engine responding to an emergency?

That is a DIFFERENT MATTER

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

There is "missing", and there is "missing". I, too, have been on searches (sometimes with S&R) for missing people. But a 911 call or a child missing is a VASTLY different situation from someone who has simply "vanished" and nobody has seen them for a day or two.

As I have mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I have been the victim of illegal search by overzealous law enforcement. And if I find out that somebody has illegally accessed or searched my phone records (or other private records), then they would get sued. Period. I would use the best lawyer I could manage to retain, and I would go for the throat.

Again, your situation was a 911 call, and you were right to be furious. But the primary matter under discussion here is VERY different.

And I can answer one of your questions above quite easily: the cell phone company is prohibited by law from disclosing those phone records. You would not get anywhere suing them for complying with the law. But you could most likely sue them for violating it by giving up your records without a warrant.

And no, in the vast majority of cases it is nothing at all like not yielding to a fire engine that is responding, because they are very seldom "911" situations. And if they are, the police CAN typically get an "emergency" warrant in under an hour. So the illegal search is STILL not justified.

Re:As someone on a Search & Rescue team

[dgatwood (11270)]

A person calling 911 and asking for help is explicitly asking to be found. If AT&T really did that, they should be sued for reckless endangerment. There's simply no excuse for that.

In cases of a third-party report of the person being missing, that's a little different. That said, it is still better to err on the side of caution and send someone to find the person. Upon finding the missing person, the police should be obligated to reveal who is looking for him/her, and if the missing person says "I don't want to be found by him/her," the police should be obligated by law to report that and only that to the person looking for him/her. There should also be protections in place to prevent a corrupt police officer from falsely claiming that someone reported a person missing in order to stalk that person. That's a reasonable balance between safety and privacy for most sane people.

Simple Solution

[PPH (736903)]

If the telco is required to inform the customer each time their location is provided to law enforcement (or anyone else), that will stop abuse. If I'm stuck in a ditch, a text message to the effect that my location has just been provided to assist in my rescue isn't going to upset me.

Re:

[Chuck Chunder (21021)]

Might be handy information for kidnappers to know too ;)

A well-publicized rescue based on cell signals

[shankarunni (1002529)]

For those of you who remember this incident a couple of years ago:

http://www.news.com/2100-1028_3-6140118.html [news.com]

James Kim's family was rescued because of a *single* ping received from a dying cell phone at a remote tower in Oregon.

Don't call me.

[Beer_Smurf (700116)]

Perhaps there should be a box to check when you sign your contract as to if you prefer privacy or help.

It's not rocket science

[Wapiti-eater (759089)]

If they use that info to find a lost person - cool. Mama and Papa are happy - nice newspaper articles are printed and everyone feels good and shags their squeeze feeling the hero they are.

If any info used for a criminal case is obtained 'illegally' (such as without a warrant) it is declared 'tainted' and is unusable. No one gets shagged, no one's a hero, some DA ripps some one a new ass and whatever nasties were discovered are now protected.

What's the big deal? It's not a perfect system - but parts of it generally do work, now and then.

Isn't it a crime?

[Scrameustache (459504)]

I'm pretty sure it's criminally negligent to fail to disclose your whereabouts to people who are likely to worry and file a missing persons' report.
Causing cops extra work for no reward is universally punishable by law, by some strange coincidence.

Mandatory implanting people with tracking units...

[Prisoner's Dilemma (1268306)]

would also help find the occasional kid.

Cell phones with GPS (mandated for our benefit) could also be used to help find missing people, like those terrorists. Terrorists that speak out against the government, or a political party, or anyone claiming to be law enforcement.

Re:But "It's for the children!"

[jamesh (87723)]

Yes, with skull mounted trackers we'd finally have the correct answer to the question "It's 10pm. Do you know where your children are?". You'd just whip out the offspring locater, press a few buttons, and you'd know instantly where they are.

Or at least where their skull is.

Judge's signature necessary? FALLACY.

[chriscappuccio (80696)]

Most states have laws which allow state district attorneys to sign a warrant to obtain phone or internet records. A JUDGE'S SIGNATURE IS NOT NECESSARY. There is also a federal version of this law for our attorney friends in federal offices. This whole idea that the information is legally protected is COMPLETE BULLSHIT. NO ISP OR PHONE COMPANY REQUIRES A JUDGE'S SIGNATURE TO OBTAIN RECORDS.

Any Telco/ISP that receives a DA-signed warrant will either 1. comply or 2. get owners/officers dragged into court, and into jail if they refuse to comply.

I know this because I brought such a case to the Oregon ACLU, who was very interested. So intersted that within 12 hours of my detailed e-mail, they asked their lawyers to look at it. The lawyers pointed out the Oregon and federal laws to me, and explained that other states had equivalent statutes. Game over.

The basic case was this: Somebody with a laptop lojack-type tracking software installed had their laptop stolen. The company who managed the tracking software had pinpointed it to an IP address on my network. A Portland, OR police detective then sent an affidavit signed by a Portland DA to get the identity of the user behind this IP address. I refused to give him the information, thinking that there was legal protection for my network user. The detective threatened to drag me into court and so I contacted the ACLU. The ACLU's contact page said I should wait up to 36 days to get a reply. This was around 8 PM. At 8:30 AM the next morning, the office of the director called me back with a keen interest in the case. Cool, eh?

hen, their lawyers got involved. They informed me of the multitude of laws which make this perfectly legitimate activity. This was not the answer I expected (and apparently not the answer that the Oregon ACLU director's office expected, either, because they completely lost interest.) They also told me that the threats to force us to appear in court over the matter were no joking matter.

In the end, we never heard from the customer that we outed, or at least they still pay their bill. So, it may have worked out ok for everyone. Anyways, the guys who are out there selling anyone's phone records for the asking are doing the same thing with the carriers - pretending to be district attorneys, not judges.

TOS

[nguy (1207026)]

I suspect that the TOS allow it (or would quickly get a clause to that effect). Then the ball is in your court.

If you want to disappear without your family being able to find you, just get yourself a new cell phone. It seems kind of stupid to keep running around with the old one anyway.

Re:Franklin?

[holophrastic (221104)]

I entirely agree. And this is the perfect example too.

To everyone else, of course, if I were missing, yeah I'd want my telco to help find me. And yes of course my safety is more important than my privacy and more important than the many many many ways in which this can be abused.

But honestly folks, when was the last time that you went missing? How many times do you risk getting kidnapped? I'm not living out in the middle of nowhere where I accidentally dangle from a cliff. And I'm not in any sort of a dangerous city. And 90% of those dangers don't provide for the time to be rescued.

So we're talking about a time when I need rescuing, and my government has the time to realize that I'm missing and then to actually find me. Come on. When does that happen?

I'll tell you when it happens. It happens when a friend or family member is expecting me to be somewhere, and I'm a few hours late and unreachable. That's not police asking the telco, it's pretty much my next of kin.

Now I have no problem organize a list of people, to whom I grant the power of grey skull to be given my mobile phone's location. Quite frankly, I think that's a great idea in general. But it won't be my government. It'll be my parents, my children, my wife, a few crazy-close friends, my business partners, and perhaps a really good neighbour. Oh, and my doctor and my lawyer. In other words, people who already have a key to my home, a code to my alarm, power of attorney, or some equivalent level of trust that far over-shadow my location as a point of privacy.

Re:Franklin?

[ColaMan (37550)]

Now I have no problem organize a list of people, to whom I grant the power of grey skull to be given my mobile phone's location. Quite frankly, I think that's a great idea in general. But it won't be my government. It'll be my parents, my children, my wife, a few crazy-close friends, my business partners, and perhaps a really good neighbour. Oh, and my doctor and my lawyer. In other words, people who already have a key to my home, a code to my alarm, power of attorney, or some equivalent level of trust that far over-shadow my location as a point of privacy.

I know! Lets ask some commonly-trusted community representative to act on behalf of all these people that could be concerned about your whereabouts. Some group that has a reasonable idea of law and procedure for these kind of things, and could be held accountable to some degree if they try and abuse said trust...... then anyone - anyone, not just those on your list - genuinely concerned for your whereabouts, could contact these representatives for help and make their case for further assistance. The telcos - having dealt with said representatives semi-regularly - would already have a relatively trusting arrangement with them, knowing already that they wouldn't generally ask if it wasn't generally necessary, with the overall setup saving time and hassles when someone has a legitimate concern for your safety.

Note then that this setup doesn't require any action or upkeep from you, in case you forget to keep your list of friends/doctors/lawyers/neighbors/good samaritians in sync with the telcos list.

Dear Police:

[Jane Q. Public (1010737)]

I am disappearing on purpose. Have a nice day. Sincerely, Jane.