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

51–60 of 76 posts

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

#51

Post by cwmoore »

DangitBobby wrote: post #47
fhdkweig wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Have you asserted or waived your rights? You may have the right to consult an attorney.

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

#52

Post by OutOfHere »

cwmoore wrote: post #51
DangitBobby wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wireless cell communications have no expectation of privacy?

Have you asserted or waived your rights? You may have the right to consult an attorney.

Constitutionally granted rights cannot be waived, no matter what a legal agreement says.

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

#54

Post by throw1234567891 »

bottle_roket wrote: post #48

Isn’t most of the data sent between your phone and the cell tower encrypted anyways? This would only catch voice calls and SMS right?

They do have their own BTS. If that BTS is the one strongest advertising itself to your phone (most often simply the closest one), your phone will connect to it.

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

#55

Post by estearum »

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.

Uhh FalcoNet doesn't photograph cars. It snoops telecom traffic. And no, SCOTUS has certainly not found that the government is allowed to just arbitrarily snoop telecom traffic.

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

#57

Post by rationalist »

OutOfHere wrote: post #52
cwmoore wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you asserted or waived your rights? You may have the right to consult an attorney.

Constitutionally granted rights cannot be waived, no matter what a legal agreement says.

You can certainly do so, such as waiving the right to a jury trial.

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

#58

Post by janderson215 »

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.

The cartels have also militarized. Bit of a vicious cycle we’re in.

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

#59

Post by FireBeyond »

janderson215 wrote: post #58
adverbly wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The cartels have also militarized. Bit of a vicious cycle we’re in.

Yes, the cartels have always been at war with the Texas Department of Public Safety Criminal Investigation Division...

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

#60

Post by FireBeyond »

alwa wrote: post #38
CWuestefeld wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding the definition of "targeted". It has nothing to do with the total capacity of the system, it's about the ability differentiate a specific target from everything else. The design of these systems is the opposite of that: they're intended to intercept everything within their reach. The fact that with only four devices, their reach isn't (yet) so great has no bearing.

It’s the “within their reach” that constitutes the targeting, it seems to me. Maybe “particularized scrutiny” is a better word? Each fancy radio can only be in one place at one time, and presumably with a human operator in the vehicle or wearing the backpack. Which emulates a cell station, not all tens of thousands of them in the state simultaneously. That feels much more like “DUI checkpoint checking all cars on thi…

> Each fancy radio can only be in one place at one time

5G mid-band (let's go with the charitable option) has an effective range of up to 2miles.

So no big deal, just all 5G communications within up to a 12sq mi circle surrounding the vehicle.

Don't think that's exactly "targeted".

Post reply on HN