I don't see how historicity weakens the argument.

The reality is that data can be used to your benefit or against you. Having more of it doesn't shift the balance one way or another. It just means there's more opportunities to take it one way or the other.

Your times article also makes no mention of location tracking raising exoneration rates. It talks most prominently about how cheap faulty field drug tests contributed significantly to the improper convictions.

Every extra data point is an opportunity for abuse, not exoneration.

When you are facing wrongful conviction, the assumption is that you are unable to present evidence in an effective manner anyway.

I'm assuming you mean local logging of your location, as opposed to burying it in a company's blackbox of a cloud. I think it's a far superior option from a privacy standpoint because you are in control of whether or not that information exists to the rest of the world. That is the critical differentiating factor.

I'm also assuming here that you are actively looking to have your location logged -- something most people do not explicitly sign up for before it starts happening for them (usually after it has manifested results, people accept it as some weird fact-of-life).

Got recommendation?