The 911 Act: How Emergency Services, Privacy, & Redaction Intersect

The Wireless Communications and Public Safety Act of 1999, commonly known as the 911 act, was passed by the U.S. Congress to “promote and enhance public safety through the use of 911 as the universal emergency assistance number, and for other purposes.” The Act amended the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and marked a critical turning point in how Americans reached emergency services, especially as mobile phones became widely adopted.

For areas and counties around the country that did not have basic 911 access at the time, the 911 Act still allowed for mobile calls made from these areas to be forwarded to the appropriate local emergency authority. To this end, the 911 Act also mandated that wireless phones in the U.S. begin providing location information for the purposes of enabling and coordinating communication around the country.

While this dramatically improved response times, it also sparked early concerns regarding mobile location tracking and the broader privacy implications of storing citizens’ geolocation data. At the time, large-scale collection of personal location information was not yet a common practice. Today, however, mobile device tracking is embedded into daily life. The privacy questions raised in 1999 remain highly relevant as emergency services, crisis centers, and public safety agencies navigate the balance between rapid response, data protection, and the responsible redaction of sensitive information.

What was the Purpose of the Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act of 1999?

The main purpose of the 911 Act was to leverage emerging mobile technologies to improve access to emergency assistance. As Congressman Bobby L. Rush explained during legislative discussions:

“In the age where technology is evolving and wireless telephones are prevalent in our society, it is important that in emergency situations wireless customers have access to enhanced 911 or E911. Having access to E911 allows wireless phone users to dial 911 and have the call routed to an attendant who has information on the caller’s telephone number and location.”

Before the Act, many wireless carriers lacked E911 capabilities, and operators often had no way to identify a caller’s location. This made it difficult for emergency responders to locate individuals in crisis, particularly when callers could not speak or were unsure of their surroundings. The 911 Act sought to fix this gap by:

• Establishing 911 as the universal emergency number nationwide
• Ensuring wireless calls reached the correct public safety answering point (PSAP)
• Requiring carriers to support automatic number identification (ANI) and automatic location identification (ANL)
• Reducing emergency response times through improved routing and location accuracy

While the number 911 had first been used to contact emergency services in Haleyville, Alabama in 1968, there had been no universal number that could be contacted for the purposes of utilizing emergency services. The explosion of mobile phone use in the late 1990s created new possibilities, and new challenges, for emergency communication. For the first time in American history, citizens of the country could make phone calls without having to use a landline or payphone. Subsequently, The Wireless Communication and Public Safety Act of 1999 created a link between cell phone usage and the contacting of emergency calls and services.

Why Did the Passing of the 911 Act Lead to Privacy Concerns?

While the 911 Act’s purpose centered on improving public safety, its implementation depended on collecting mobile location data, which includes GPS coordinates, cell-tower proximity, and other geolocation information. This data is essential for routing calls and helping dispatchers identify a caller’s approximated location, even if they cannot speak.

However, this ability to essentially track individuals through their cell phones presents both privacy and ethical concerns, many of which still persist:

• Prior to the 911 Act, continuous or automated collection of location information was not common.
• Storing and transmitting location data introduced questions about how long such data should be retained and who could access it.
• As mobile phones became ubiquitous, the potential for misuse of location information by governments, corporations, or third parties, grew significantly.

Perhaps the greatest example of the potential privacy issues that can arise from well-intentioned legislation and subsequent technological use is the case of former computer intelligence consultant Edward Snowden. While working for the National Security Agency or NSA, Snowden amassed several classified documents that contained proof of the intelligence agencies’ effective spying of American citizens through the guise of helping shield said citizens from threats of terror. What’s more, Snowden also revealed that many popular tech companies, including cell phone service providers, were also complicit in this unconstitutional invasion of privacy. However, when the NSA was confronted with these claims, they countered by reaffirming their intentions of supporting counter-terrorism efforts.

According to the NSA, American citizens who had nothing to hide would have nothing to worry about. This stance would appear to contract the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment right of people “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”. To this point, one of the main ways in which the NSA had gone about collecting data from American citizens was by accessing their mobile location data.

Protecting Caller Privacy with Automated Redaction

The 911 Act ushered in a new era of emergency responses. Mobile location data has helped save countless lives, particularly in rural or remote areas where identifying a caller’s location is difficult. Yet the collection, storage, and use of this information must be carefully managed to protect the privacy of American citizens. As more sensitive data moves through emergency communication systems, the need for secure handling and proper redaction has become increasingly important.

Crisis centers, hotlines, and public safety agencies now handle:

• Location data
• Caller phone numbers
• Voice recordings
• Sensitive personal details
• Emergency response notes
• Potentially protected health information (PHI)

Because of this, organizations must follow strict data-handling protocols and often rely on redaction practices to remove personally identifiable information (PII) before recordings, documents, or transcripts can be shared for training, reporting, or legal review. Without redaction, even routine exchanges could expose callers’ identities, medical conditions, or locations.

This is where AI redaction tools such as CaseGuard come into play. Automated redaction software enables crisis centers and emergency services to automatically redact sensitive video, audio, and documents, and helps teams protect caller confidentiality, meet compliance requirements, and securely manage data, without slowing down life-saving operations.