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

31–40 of 76 posts

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

#31

Post by eclipticplane »

mike_bob wrote: post #13
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 .

As a country, we spend nearly as much on domestic police (~$250B) as China does on their military each year. And from what I've seen, there is no correlation with increases in police spending and drops in crime rates. It's pretty disturbing if you think about it.

It's a mass jobs program with a powerful set of unions behind it.

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

#32

Post by [deleted] »

mmooss wrote: post #10
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.

Another story in the same publication is about one of their writers being arrested because of Flock cameras (falsely IDing their test-drive car).

[deleted]

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

#33

Post by DivingForGold »

This just adds fuel to the fire favoring police location apps, where users who spot police vehicles, in this case DPS vehicles post on their app and all app users receive notifications, so anybody nearby can turn off their cellphones - - or, "clam them up" in a ball of 50 layers of aluminum foil slit on the side. Of course, police will merely start placing hardware in inconspicuous vehicles then. What if there was a way to massively FLOOD these devices with spurious data though?

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

#34

Post by throw0101a »

SoftTalker wrote: post #5
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.

Most criminals are dumb, some of them not only carry their phones with them, they even post their crimes on social media. With that and Flock I would think police work has never been easier.

> With that and Flock I would think police work has never been easier.

“A policeman's job is only easy in a police state.” — Touch of Evil (1958), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfgNNfnNAa8

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

#35

Post by hackable_sand »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #24
wat10000 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also depends on what you consider to be “criminal.” I’d wager most shoplifters are dumb. Most supervisors who engage in wage theft aren’t dumb. But that’s not the kind of person who comes to mind when we think “criminal.”

There are two kinds of people in the world. Criminals, and criminals with plausible deniability.

Now we're getting somewhere.

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

#36

Post by fhdkweig »

OutOfHere wrote: post #27
fhdkweig wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

State or federal constitution?

It is prohibited by the nation's Constitution which overrules all contained regions. The contained regions can add further restrictions, not lower them.

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?

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

#37

Post by adverbly »

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.

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

#38

Post by alwa »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #29
alwa wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.”

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 this road at this time,” or “canvassing the neighborhood around the crime,” or “the stadium operator invited the cops into the security office to watch their CCTV feeds during the big game.” Precipitated on some reason—maybe not the specific human, but something that’s different about that place and time that warrants a human targeting their attention there.

As opposed to the network-level, “all communications between all people all the time just in case” that constituted the “mass” surveillance that Snowden described (and Flock has since innovated and extended to the physical world).

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

#39

Post by [deleted] »

fhdkweig wrote: post #36
OutOfHere wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is prohibited by the nation's Constitution which overrules all contained regions. The contained regions can add further restrictions, not lower them.

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?

[deleted]

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

#40

Post by OutOfHere »

fhdkweig wrote: post #36
OutOfHere wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is prohibited by the nation's Constitution which overrules all contained regions. The contained regions can add further restrictions, not lower them.

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, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

It clearly says: The right of the people to to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches shall not be violated.

Post reply on HN