I would point out that your right to privacy is not absolute. On the basis of other information developed independently law enforcement can obtain a warrants to obtain things like your books and papers and computers.
Here, Kelsey's parents confirmed on surveillance video that she had been abducted. (Evidence that a crime had been committed.) Not in the article but IIRC her parents had to obtain a court order to get her phone info, even though she was their minor daughter. If you feel this use of geo-tracking information by parents looking for their minor daughter interferes with your right to privacy go ahead and feel whatever you want. In the future in the case of Google phone service, another basis will be required to issue warrants on the phones containing this location information which will require physical seizure from their owners. .
In passing I would also note that the right to life is also a constitutional right and in the hierarchy of rights outweighs your assumed right to privacy on what is a publicly broadcast and transmitted phone network subject interception by any group with the proper equipment. Same applies to the Internet, privacy is an ideal but good luck with the realities of that "utility".
Comment; Geo-location information can be incredibly beneficial tracking missing people whose cars have plunged over embankments or into a pond, hikers, confused elderly, boaters floating in the ocean, things like that. With a warrant It can be used to track criminals. Apparently you can buy this information and catch Fraudsters on bikes dumping fake ballots in illegitimate Ballot Collection boxes at 2:00 AM. (This seems wrong, but I do not think they identify the phone user... but I do not know how else you track this info.) It was used in a very illegitimate way by law enforcement to track people at the J6 protest / FIB false flag staged insurrection. If there is a legal basis to obtain this information without the phone owners consent it should be done with a warrant. Google is just opting out of all the legal responsibility and cost this by putting it on a phone and allowing it to lapse after a short period of time.
**Phone service providers should have a signup authorization option for users to allow emergency use of their geo-location and specify what constitutes an emergency.
You state that law enforcement can obtain warrants.
I agree with this concept wholeheartedly.
As for the parents getting the data, of the phone is in their name it’s a non issue.
The data should have been provided.
If the phone is in her name ( we can discuss the validity of minors signing contracts at a later date ) then the parents have no rights to the data.
That’s the law.
Now if a warrant is issued for the data, then the phone company should release the data.
Theoretically.
With the preponderance of plain old BS warrants being issued from the bench, the phone companies are in a precarious position. They will err on the side of caution.
The right of the people to be secure in their papers is absolute ( yes, the data on your phone is considered your papers ).
A simple solution is to install tracking software on the phone.
Another solution is to place the phones for your minor children in your name.
I did both of these actions when my children were minors.
Easy peasy and consitutionally compliant.
Someone else’s lack of planning doesn’t constitute an emergency on my part.