Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

texasobserver.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 135 posts

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#51

Post by aeonik »

collingreen wrote: post #22
gruez wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard. 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 b…

When the second amendment was ratified, privately owned warships were a regular thing for the wealthy.

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.

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#54

Post by Terr_ »

bee_rider wrote: post #36
Terr_ wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation. 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-d…

We’re obviously failing the expectations of the founding fathers if we don’t have civilian owned HIMARS.

I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer.

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.

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#55

Post by mikeyouse »

topspin wrote: post #25
jadenpeterson wrote: post #11

Why are they comfortable saying this? > 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…

> Why are they comfortable saying this? 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,…

Tools like this are substantially different than time/location Bound geofences with warrants served to providers like were used in the Jan 6 investigations. And even those are under SCOTUS scrutiny for 4th amendment concerns.

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#56

Post by sneak »

jadenpeterson wrote: post #11

Why are they comfortable saying this? > 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…

They’re comfortable saying this because the US doesn’t have the rule of law, as evidenced by laws not applying to police.

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#57

Post by gruez »

collingreen wrote: post #22
gruez wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard. 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 b…

>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.

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.

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#58

Post by sneak »

alex_young wrote: post #26
jadenpeterson wrote: post #11

Why are they comfortable saying this? > 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…

The interesting part here is that they are apparently no longer even trying to use parallel construction [0] to cover this stuff up. They somehow feel confident that just saying we have this technology, we don’t say how we use it, but we wind up on the right trail and then gather some evidence down the road we wound up on somehow. Seems shaky at best. Smells of hubris. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_const…

Nothing will change until and unless police start suffering severe consequences for breaking the law.

Such consequences will never come from the state.

Post reply on HN