Live data from Hacker News

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

texasobserver.org

11–20 of 135 posts

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

#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 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?

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

#13
post #7

Sounds a lot like 'parallel construction'.

It turns out it's actually fine if your data is on offer to the government from a third party.

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.

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

#14
post #7

Sounds a lot like 'parallel construction'.

It turns out it's actually fine if your data is on offer to the government from a third party. 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.

[dead]

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

#15
post #7

Sounds a lot like 'parallel construction'.

It turns out it's actually fine if your data is on offer to the government from a third party. 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.

>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.

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

#16
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Transit and traffic planners would be foaming at the mouth for real commute data like this instead of just fixed point count data.

Google has it

AFAIK they're moving their stuff to be on device

https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleMaps/comments/1diivt3/megathr...

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

#18

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…

Was that suspicious? I thought his face was plastered all over the news.

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

#19

I hate the concept. But this is not the right case to test the tool against.

>I hate the concept. But this is not the right case to test the tool against. 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?

> which case are you referring?

The example given at the top of the article. We want Tangle or whatever used idiotically to strike down its use in federal court.

Post reply on HN