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

121–130 of 135 posts

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

#121

Post by reactordev »

HNisCIS wrote: post #112
reactordev wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. It’s both hyper illegal and they don’t want you to know how they do it. It’s Pegasus 2.0

Thinking on it, I suspect it's a case of a larger number of smaller techniques. Cops aren't very good at keeping secrets so it can't be something that is widely pervasive, but every department has their stupid little trick

It’s all about delivery. Cops don’t deal with it directly. Their department does through a vendor on a branded portal where they upload information and it does its thing.

It’s no different than any investigative portal they use in their eyes.

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

#122

Post by AndrewKemendo »

esseph wrote: post #115
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty sure we used the same link and you’re explaining it as though I’m wrong Smdh

Yours goes to the Texas Army National Guard page. Mine goes to the TXSG (Texas State Guard)

The root subdomain is for the Texas state guard…

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

#123

Post by thesmtsolver2 »

codezero wrote: post #75
thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_police_offic...

you link to a page with convicted police numbering in the tens in a nation of 340 million people, with a police force on the order of a million. I wouldn't believe you in a second if you said that the police commit crimes at a rate of 0.0001 per capita. That's absurd. You're basically verifying the claim that the police are not held accountable for breaking the law. Great work. If that was your intent, please do more…

The comment I responded to didn't have any data. You don't have any data, not for the US and not for any imaginary country that is better than the US at holding police accountable.

> 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!

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

#124

Post by prophesi »

3form wrote: post #108
prophesi wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard a lot more recognition for Apple refusing to comply with unlocking iPhones over the years than any of these other cases.

This might just be the bias of the groups you are in (myself included).

I think there's also the bias in that it's normal to comply in the first place, and there'd be no fanfare about it.

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

#127

Post by josefritzishere »

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…

That quote is Boyd's criminal confession.

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

#128

Post by 15155 »

thephyber wrote: post #99
aeonik wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Tanks for all! /s 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 i…

> Tanks for all!

"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?

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

#129

Post by 15155 »

potato3732842 wrote: post #119
Terr_ wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was... was that nonsense supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"? 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…

The point is that they implicitly expect private entities/individuals to be able to own and deploy "go toe to toe with the the state equivilent" quality units (though I don't think they expected the same quantity at that quality).

> though I don't think they expected the same quantity at that quality

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.

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

#130

Post by 15155 »

Terr_ wrote: post #50
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…

P.S.: In other words, the second amendment was designed purely to block the new federal government from disarming the states. I assert that any "Originalist" saying otherwise is actually betraying their claimed philosophy. 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.

Meanwhile privateers sunk or captured 2200+ British ships during the Revolution - I'm sure this was all "organized" militia and every one of those cannons had a permit and taxes paid.

Who are you trying to fool?

Post reply on HN