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

Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 76 posts

Re: Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

#41

Post by troupo »

adverbly wrote: post #37
randycupertino wrote: post #2

Answer: Military Grade surveillance tech > Naturally, it wasn’t just $4.5 million for four 2026 Chevy Tahoes, though the SUVs themselves were still bizarrely expensive at $150,000 a piece. Here’s how the purchase order breaks down: - FalcoNet Core System (x4): $2,850,000 - Unlicensed FalcoNet core system: $200,000 - Delta 5G Perpetual license for FalcoNet V (x4): $280,000 - 2026 Chevrolet Tahoe (x4): $600,000 - Falco…

The obvious question then becomes why 4 military-grade surveillance Tech Tahoes are needed. Was three not enough for the current demand for military grade surveillance by the police? Why is there so much demand for military grade surveillance? Is there a better way to address that core need? A million bucks buys a lot of essential services.

John Oliver did a report on militarization of police 11 years ago. It's only become worse since: https://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A?is=C86HI8463VZnqjXU

Re: Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

#42

Post by cucumber3732842 »

ronsor wrote: post #4
randycupertino wrote: post #2

Answer: Military Grade surveillance tech > Naturally, it wasn’t just $4.5 million for four 2026 Chevy Tahoes, though the SUVs themselves were still bizarrely expensive at $150,000 a piece. Here’s how the purchase order breaks down: - FalcoNet Core System (x4): $2,850,000 - Unlicensed FalcoNet core system: $200,000 - Delta 5G Perpetual license for FalcoNet V (x4): $280,000 - 2026 Chevrolet Tahoe (x4): $600,000 - Falco…

Every police station needs to be a mini-CIA, surely.

You'd think the real CIA would get pissy about these upstarts and stomp em.

Re: Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

#43

Post by cucumber3732842 »

fhdkweig wrote: post #21
OutOfHere wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass surveillance is prohibited by the Constitution. The majority of the funds went toward it.

State or federal constitution?

Under the 4th amendment which has been incorperated against the states in the 1960s.

Re: Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

#44

Post by fhdkweig »

OutOfHere wrote: post #40
fhdkweig wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that surveillance is not mentioned in the US Constitution. They didn't really have a concept of surveillance. Can you quote the line?

The Supreme Court has over multiple cases recognized that the collection of mass digital information can implicate Fourth Amendment protections. Here is the foundational line: > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, an…

Well the problem comes down to what is considered "unreasonable searches". When I think "surveillance", I think cameras on cars that photograph everything they pass by. The courts have again and again considered those to be reasonable with no expectations of privacy. And the trucks in this article are doing exactly that.

Re: Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

#45

Post by cucumber3732842 »

bob1029 wrote: post #3

I find it amusing how ineffective all of this stuff becomes if you simply leave your phone at home. No one is doing the hard kind of police work anymore.

They don't care about catching criminals. They can use real police work for that. They care about being able to profile everyone going back some arbitrary amount of time so that when someone who isn't homeless with nothing the state can steal gets out of line they can come up with a short list of who done it.

Re: Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

#46

Post by cucumber3732842 »

mmooss wrote: post #11
OutOfHere wrote: post #6

A core issue as I see it is that the police has too much money. Why are people willingly paying so much in taxes? Why don't people move to lower tax cities and counties? Granted, fines also contribute to their income. There are ways of lowering crime that don't require police militarization, some of which are covered in https://youtu.be/YJTPGu2E4qk .

It's an interesting question: Isn't Texas widely marketed as a 'low tax area'? It may be a 'low income tax area', with more regressive taxes used to fund the state and an equal or higher total? Texans need to pay for the same things, generally, as people in Massachusetts (though maybe they don't invest as much in schools, health care, etc.).

You vastly under-estimate how expensive social services programs are. The people of Texas can pay less have piles of money for 1984 equipped police cars and highschool football stadiums and other boondoggles by simply not having those programs.

Is it the right thing to do? ehhh....

That said Texas isn't that low tax overall compared to a lot of other states. They have pretty oppressive property taxes.

Re: Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

#47

Post by DangitBobby »

fhdkweig wrote: post #44
OutOfHere wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Supreme Court has over multiple cases recognized that the collection of mass digital information can implicate Fourth Amendment protections. Here is the foundational line: > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, an…

Well the problem comes down to what is considered "unreasonable searches". When I think "surveillance", I think cameras on cars that photograph everything they pass by. The courts have again and again considered those to be reasonable with no expectations of privacy. And the trucks in this article are doing exactly that.

Wireless cell communications have no expectation of privacy?

Re: Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

#49

Post by preg_match »

alwa wrote: post #23
OutOfHere wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mass surveillance is prohibited by the Constitution. The majority of the funds went toward it.

Maybe so, but four physical trucks, interpreting physical radio waves in their immediate vicinity, allocated across the whole state of Texas… that’s “targeted,” not “mass.”

If I install one great big Dr Evil dish that records all web traffic in texas, that would be mass. I have no idea how far these vehicles surveil, but I'm guess it's very far.

Re: Texas Police Spent $4.5M on Four Chevy Tahoes

#50

Post by Tostino »

alwa wrote: post #25
Hikikomori wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cops are lazy and dumb as well. They use flock to find people in the area and accuse them of crimes they didn't commit.

They also use flock to find and accuse people who did commit crimes and accuse them of having done so. They also find and accuse people of crimes they didn’t commit without using Flock. They also use Flock to skip accusing people who they might have suspected if it weren’t for Flock evidence that exonerates them. It seems like any meaningful analysis needs to consider the rates of all four combinations of {true|false…

I've read enough of your comments here to know to disregard your opinion. You just want a surveillance state.
Post reply on HN