Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used
texasobserver.org
texasobserver.org
> Generally, Boyd said his office uses the software to find “avenues for obtaining probable cause” or “to verify reasonable suspicion that you already have”—not as a basis by itself to make arrests.
As if that's not a massive violation of our rights in and of itself. This is my fundamental problem with the internet. As much as stories like these gain traction, as many millions of redditors protest these increasingly common stories (for example, the suspicious nature of Luigi Mangione being 'reported' in that McDonalds), nothing will change.
Perhaps this is the part of the criminal justice system I am most suspect of. Is this what happens in a country with less regulation?
They receive recognition for the results. Phone data was used in a large fraction of the cases against rioters in the 2021 capital attack. The Powers That Be were grateful that law enforcement were able to use phone data to either initially identify attackers or corroborate other evidence, and ultimately put people in prison. The justice system makes cases with this every day, and the victims of criminals are thankful for these results.
What it does become is a data point in an evidential submission that can strengthen a case that could otherwise be argued back as a bit flaky. It's similar to DNA evidence in that it's not actually 100% reliable nor is the data handled forensically at every stage of collection, but it's treated as if it is.
I think it's weighted too heavily in evidence and should not be used as a fine-toothed comb to sweep for "evidence" when it can be so easily tainted or faked. At the same time, I'd love to see the current members of the pushback against ICE using this data fallacy against future prosecutions. "Yeah, I was at home, look" and actually it's just a replay of a touch or face ID login running from a packaged emulator, or whatever signature activities meet the evidential requirement.
They'd have had to enjoin more parties, probably to include state agencies. Any party can push back, stall or blow the whistle if they feel something wrong and risky to them is happening. Which is exactly the opposite of what the feds want. They want to act unilaterally, on anything and everything.
I suspect we're about to see all kinds of abuses of information in the US.
Seems shaky at best. Smells of hubris.
Such consequences will never come from the state.
Seattle’s consent decree directly contradicts this.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-returns-fu...
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2026/01/video-cops-rallie...
Insurers who threaten to drop departments have immense leverage that city managers, city elected leaders, and voters don’t.
There aren’t a lot of departments who go bankrupt, but the few that do make a crying show of it and they are a great to show departments who flout reform.
> police commit crimes at a rate of 0.0001 per capita. That's absurd
Once again, Care to share comparative data with other countries? I will.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?para...
There is no utopia, all developed countries are more-or-less the same here.
> elucidate your opinion in the future please, if it wasn't your intent, well, next time just please don't post
Thanks for the high-brow discussion and critical thinking that HN is famous for lol.
You posted a comment without critical thinking or data and ended with a personal. Great job on the privileged angry thinking!
Translation: "Sprinkle some crack on him and let's get the hell out of here."
Regulations are made or dismantled in an effort to funnel money into regulators own businesses or investments and to combat their political opponents, all under the premise that it's for the good of society. (And, in some cases it has been.)
This shouldn't be news to anyone. What's shocking is that this is still shocking to people.
The Constitution was meant to be permanently fixed and extremely literal about only the technology available from centuries ago, it was not meant to describe general concepts nor intended to be updated to ensure those same rights are retained along with changes in society.
/s?
I can't tell because people unironically use the same reasoning to make the "2nd amendment only apply to muskets" argument.
The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again.
Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to be ready to hold ground until the more official military forces can arrive.
If we want to get really pedantic about 2A where are the well regulated militias?
Even if someone really is saying the thing you're claiming, 2A doesn't mention muskets at all or any other specific technology so that would be a really dumb thing for those people to say.
For example the Texas Guard:
https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard
Not that I’d ever want them near anything useful but that’s the answer
https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard
;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only.
However TX considers it more complicated than that:
The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard.
The Unorganized Militia: This consists of all "able-bodied" residents of the state who are at least 18 but under 45 years of age and are not members of the organized militia.
Smdh
Mine goes to the TXSG (Texas State Guard)
On one hand, it was controlled by the state, which also had to supply materiel, and not just random citizens making a group. Upper ranks could only be appointed by the state legislatures.
On the other hand, the weaponry the militia was expected to use included horse-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff.
Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?
Giving the federal government the option to deputize individuals as international agents does not even remotely suggest that States were agreeing to completely abolish all their local gun-laws for all time.
That's like claiming the permission to establish a national postal service somehow bars States from having DUI laws, because any drunkard could maybe suddenly be hired as a postman.
So, to fit it into your analogy, I think it is more like the permission to establish a national postal service implies that the government in the past had not outlawed literacy. There is no need for the government to provide services where the only possible users are already breaking the law.
That said I’m not actually sure I believe this because ships have always been a bit weird legally, going about in international waters far away from any law enforcement… it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some specific cut out for weapons that were only to be used at sea or something…
Some did, but that doesn't mean states couldn't (or didn't) have laws touching on it.
Similarly, I own and use a car today... but that doesn't mean "the state can't have safety requirements for vehicles", nor does it mean "the state can't bar a legally-blind 20-time DUI convict from driving."
> your analogy
I have a much better/closer one to offer. Consider that tomorrow the Federal legislature could grant a letter of Marque and Reprisal to someone who... Is a convicted murderer held on (state) death-row.
Does that possible wrinkle mean the original Constitution actually banned States from running their own prison systems all along? Does it mean only the federal government is allowed to sentence anybody to carceral punishment?
Obviously not, that'd be an insane conclusion... Yet the only difference here which realm of state law was "getting in the way." If a state can't have gun control because of an M&R letter, then it can't have prisons either.
Privateers sunk or captured literally thousands of ships during the Revolution, and were documented to be far more effective than the Continental Navy. The Founders knew this: they were there.
Sure, but crucially "expect some" is not "expect all". The presence of some X is not the same as absolutely zero limitations on X.
Suppose the Federal government chooses to award a letter of Marque and Reprisal to... Bob. However, Bob is in State prison for life, because he was convicted of multiple murders, boat-theft, ramming boats into other boats, selling guns for drugs, whatever.
This sets up a State/Federal conflict, with four major types of resolution:
1. [Specific, State] The Federal government chose a useless agent, but that's their problem for making a stupid choice instead of picking someone not in prison who can wave a gun around and do the job they want done.
2. [Specific, Federal] A lawsuit occurs and it is decided the State has to specifically release Bob from prison and wave a gun around as long as he has that special Federal status.
3. [General, State] The Federal government loses all ability to deputize people because that could potentially cause a conflict.
[General, Federal] The State government loses all ability to imprison anyone or control anybody's gun-waving, because that could potentially cause a conflict.
Surely you'd agree that #4 (and #3) would be insane? Nobody drafted or ratified that M&R clause thinking that they agreed to nullify their State's ability to imprison, nor that the M&R clause itself would be dead on arrival. (Aside, #2 is problematic since it would give Congress a secret pardoning power even more-powerful than the President's.)
If it never created a private right before, then it was wrongly "incorporated" by Supreme Court doctrine, and States ought to be free to set their own gun policies.
Who are you trying to fool?
The Articles of Confederation ("Constitution 1.0")--the thing I explicitly showcased, the first thing that "united the states" for over a decade before they wrote a sequel--clearly distinguishes between ships and militia as separate categories.
The A is over 250 years old, RTFA already.
They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated".
Second, the incident I'm referencing is well documented. You should look it up. It's basically the "feds radicalize then arrest muslim man, pat themselves on back for catching terrorist" playbook but for white people.
They would absolutely not have a problem with modern weapons.
They would probably have allowed private ownership of missiles launchers with the right authorization.
They were pretty clear that the average person should have the same capability as the state. They were a different breed.
I think nuclear weapons would be the one piece of tech that would make them think twice.
That Thomas Jefferson would be cagey around nukes?
Or sources that Privateers were a thing?
The founding fathers denied the right to bare arms to Catholics (and I’d wager lots of other religions), Native Americans, slaves (unless their owners explicitly allowed them), and we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas.
Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right.
We are in a weird place at this moment where the tide turned and lots of jurisprudence is being switched. Also, with ICE / DHS acting as unprofessional as they are, I wouldn’t be surprised to see lots of Dems advocate for more individual gun rights.
"Tanks" as a vehicle aren't regulated whatsoever - their main cannon is a destructive device which carries its own set of regulations, but you can absolutely own a tank (sans main gun) with zero paperwork.
Privateers sunk over 600 British vessels during the Revolution - do you think they needed permits for their cannonry? Or that the Founders somehow didn't know this was happening?
> Until Heller in ~2008, the right to bare arms (as a national right) was widely agreed to mean a collective right (eg. The militias), not an individual right.
Tell me what United States v Miller was about then?
Why do the Federalist papers disagree with everything you are saying, repeatedly?
> we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas.
Federalist #46:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."
This "collective right" idea is completely bogus and flies in the face of countless historical writings, accounts, etc. The jurisprudence on this issue is long-settled, and who are you to disagree with a majority of Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States?
It was settled for the first time with Heller in 2008, which was not long ago. That SCOTUS decision was supposedly the first to affirm that there was an individual right to carry (not as part of a militia).
Your quote from Federalist 46 doesn’t disprove what I said.
And the Heller decision was 5-4 with one of the dissenting justices claiming it was such a terrible ruling that there should be a constitutional amendment to fix it[1].
You might want to spend some more time with an open mind. You seem extremely confident, but your facts don’t back up such confidence.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...
That's an even worse argument because it's seemingly trying to both to do an motte-and-bailey and strawman at the same time. The motte and bailey comes from seemingly trying to present as sympathetic of an argument as possible. I mean, who's against reevaluating old laws? Strawman comes from the fact that from all the 2nd amendment supporters I've heard, nobody thinks it should be kept because we shouldn't be second-guessing the founding fathers or whatever. All their arguments are based on how guns aren't that dangerous, or how it serves some sort of practical purpose, like preventing state oppression or whatever. Whatever these arguments actually hold is another matter, of course, but at least "the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets" argument doesn't rely on a misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment proponents' views.
The last pull request got accepted into main in 1992 after being stuck in the per review stage for no less than 202 years. The latest one out of 4 that still remain open ("no child labour") celebrated its 100th year anniversary 18 months ago because for some reason 15 states rejected to approve it and 2 of the states haven't even bothered to address it. 12 of the 28 that gave their approval also rejected it initially but then changed their opinion down the line.
I think everyone can agree that if the founding fathers knew about modern warfare they would probably feel different about a variety of things. Or, at least, consider them more carefully.
It’s no different than any investigative portal they use in their eyes.
If I had a dime for every time a sketchy "cybersecurity"/surveillance software ended up being developed by an Israeli firm...
Texas Police Invested Millions in a Shadowy Phone-Tracking Software. They Won’t Say How They’ve Used It.
If I went to try and sell it , I’d be arrested.
Similarly, hearing about the Eppstein files makes me sick:
- deadlines? not met - limited redactions? full documents redacted - redactions explained? not at all
I want people to think about that for a second though. Imagine in a decade cops have such a technological edge in both surveillance and force that you cannot even begin to protest billionaires enslaving you let alone stage a political revolution.
Of course I'm only one person.
Deploy trust circumstantially.
The argument is that “HN is turning into Reddit” has been said since the beginning of HN… but that doesn’t make it wrong. To me the transformation is already complete. Regression to the mean is unavoidable.
To which case are you referring? TFA doesn't appear to refer to any ongoing litigation associated with the "Tangles" software.
Or are you referring to warrantless geo-fence tracking as a poor use case for the software?
Agreed. Which is why I submitted this in the first place. But AFAICT, it's orthogonal to GP's comment. Or not. Which is why I asked for clarification.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleMaps/comments/1diivt3/megathr...
The example given at the top of the article. We want Tangle or whatever used idiotically to strike down its use in federal court.
but also, who is supplying location data to tangles? saying the ‘dark web’ is not helpful or informational, and honestly if the cops are just buying location data there’s nothing illegal about the search, because it’s not a search. you willingly provided your location data to this company who is then selling it, your beef is with them to stop selling your data if it’s not in their privacy policy. it smells like they’re just using social media and claiming they have this huge database on peoples locations. this sounds like a huge nothing burger to me.
basically: don’t use sketchy apps that sell your location to data brokers or just turn off your location data for that app.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/location-data-broker-g...
Agree that using hacked sources is unethical and shouldn’t be done, but is there an actual law against law enforcement using hacked data? reporters can legally publish hacked sources.