Both have been "status quo" for decades, and subject pretty much everyone in the western world to significant, continuous surveillance. We can discuss whether it's desirable, but it's been like this for a while and people very much like benefits both provide.
Your phone (GSM anyway) continuously reports back to the cell tower it's connected to, the strength of every other cell tower it can "see". The cell network, not the handset, decides which is the better cell tower for your handset to transfer to, which is why this information is being sent in the first place.
That information, the strength of cell towers, along with the knowledge of exactly where a cell tower is placed, can be used to triangulate your position down to a few meters in crowded areas with many cell towers. It's also how your phone establishes its position without GPS.
Besides that, you probably also have a handful or more apps that tracks your location within 100m constantly.
That's not the point of this thread. The original point is whether there's any desirable mass surveillance. I think we've pretty much shown there isn't.
Yet it predates smartphones, and is a fundamental aspect of how cellular networks operate. Surveillance of course got more thorough, detailed and overarching over time, still largely for engineering reasons - the network needs to know precisely where each handset is to aim the radio beam at it.
Both have been "status quo" for decades, and subject pretty much everyone in the western world to significant, continuous surveillance. We can discuss whether it's desirable, but it's been like this for a while and people very much like benefits both provide.