> 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?
The interesting part here is that they are apparently no longer even trying to use parallel construction [0] to cover this stuff up. They somehow feel confident that just saying we have this technology, we don’t say how we use it, but we wind up on the right trail and then gather some evidence down the road we wound up on somehow.
They receive recognition for the results. Phone data was used in a large fraction of the cases against rioters in the 2021 capital attack. The Powers That Be were grateful that law enforcement were able to use phone data to either initially identify attackers or corroborate other evidence, and ultimately put people in prison. The justice system makes cases with this every day, and the victims of criminals are thankful for these results.
Tools like this are substantially different than time/location
Bound geofences with warrants served to providers like were used in the Jan 6 investigations. And even those are under SCOTUS scrutiny for 4th amendment concerns.
Results compel expectations, and every "success" unlocks more latitude. A rational person cannot admire headlines that trumpet the wonderful achievements of digital dragnets in one case, and then suffer "concern" when more aggressive techniques are employed elsewhere: there are powerful incentives involved, as any thinking person should know. J6 was a big unlock for state surveillance; the results were met with gushing praise and no friction was incurred. Now, new bounds are being pushed and the tools proliferate, as the fine distinctions you cling to are blithely forgone.
I don't like being devil's advocate on this because I am strongly against the invasion of privacy at that point in the investigation, but without that data, they'd just take a bit longer to have identified the members of the insurrection. There's varying degrees of data you can glean from cellular networks as well, right down to "it was definitely this person, the phone logs show a FaceID unlock at X time" and that action can be inferred by network logs, all information that carriers have retained for over two decades.
What it does become is a data point in an evidential submission that can strengthen a case that could otherwise be argued back as a bit flaky. It's similar to DNA evidence in that it's not actually 100% reliable nor is the data handled forensically at every stage of collection, but it's treated as if it is.
I think it's weighted too heavily in evidence and should not be used as a fine-toothed comb to sweep for "evidence" when it can be so easily tainted or faked. At the same time, I'd love to see the current members of the pushback against ICE using this data fallacy against future prosecutions. "Yeah, I was at home, look" and actually it's just a replay of a touch or face ID login running from a packaged emulator, or whatever signature activities meet the evidential requirement.
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 than post a link, and elucidate your opinion in the future please, if it wasn't your intent, well, next time just please don't post, it's not a useful contribution to the discussion in this forum.
Those are the ones that were high profile enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, it's not exhaustive. Here's a more comprehensive database: https://policecrime.bgsu.edu/
You're still citing arrested, not charged and convicted though. Those are all different, with no guarantee of the officers facing repercussions beyond a brief arrest. While those are still consequences, they have to be consistently applied (which they don't seem to be for police officers in America) or have consequences for consistently poorly behaved officers
Yeah seems like that's quite explicitly the goal. The question is, what means or method are they trying to hide and is it hyper illegal or just something they don't want to be pubic knowledge?
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.
That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard.
The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again.
Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to be ready to hold ground until the more official military forces can arrive.
If we want to get really pedantic about 2A where are the well regulated militias?
Even if someone really is saying the thing you're claiming, 2A doesn't mention muskets at all or any other specific technology so that would be a really dumb thing for those people to say.
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-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff.
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.
I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer.
Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
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 suddenly be hired as a postman.
I believe the argument is that in order to have the Letters of Marque be useful, it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons.
So, to fit it into your analogy, I think it is more like the permission to establish a national postal service implies that the government in the past had not outlawed literacy. There is no need for the government to provide services where the only possible users are already breaking the law.
That said I’m not actually sure I believe this because ships have always been a bit weird legally, going about in international waters far away from any law enforcement… it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some specific cut out for weapons that were only to be used at sea or something…
> it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons.
Some did, but that doesn't mean states couldn't (or didn't) have laws touching on it.
Similarly, I own and use a car today... but that doesn't mean "the state can't have safety requirements for vehicles", nor does it mean "the state can't bar a legally-blind 20-time DUI convict from driving."
> your analogy
I have a much better/closer one to offer. Consider that tomorrow the Federal legislature could grant a letter of Marque and Reprisal to someone who... Is a convicted murderer held on (state) death-row.
Does that possible wrinkle mean the original Constitution actually banned States from running their own prison systems all along? Does it mean only the federal government is allowed to sentence anybody to carceral punishment?
Obviously not, that'd be an insane conclusion... Yet the only difference here which realm of state law was "getting in the way." If a state can't have gun control because of an M&R letter, then it can't have prisons either.
>The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again.
That's an even worse argument because it's seemingly trying to both to do an motte-and-bailey and strawman at the same time. The motte and bailey comes from seemingly trying to present as sympathetic of an argument as possible. I mean, who's against reevaluating old laws? Strawman comes from the fact that from all the 2nd amendment supporters I've heard, nobody thinks it should be kept because we shouldn't be second-guessing the founding fathers or whatever. All their arguments are based on how guns aren't that dangerous, or how it serves some sort of practical purpose, like preventing state oppression or whatever. Whatever these arguments actually hold is another matter, of course, but at least "the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets" argument doesn't rely on a misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment proponents' views.
They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated".
This is really strong passive voice. I have to wonder if they were actually on track towards the "well regulated" part if some feds were able to convince them to kidnap a governor.
;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only.
However TX considers it more complicated than that:
The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard.
The Unorganized Militia: This consists of all "able-bodied" residents of the state who are at least 18 but under 45 years of age and are not members of the organized militia.
The increasing fraction of “zingy catchphrase” HN comments compared to actually nuanced takes is depressing. Feels like a horrible mix of Reddit and tumblr
It's very cult like and no doubt a result of people unconsciously (or not) absorbing the endless spam of Bluesky screenshots (that always follow the mindless catchphrase/black and white logic pattern) you see on every other popular "social media" platform.
You remember those cookie notices that you clicked on? Whatever you ”chose” to click, this kinda thing is where your data ended up getting ”processed”, irrespective of your ”privacy choices”.
The race is between the rich trying to achieve a level of surveillance based omnipotence such that rebellion/revolution/dissent/protest/etc are fundamentally impossible...and the US populace gaining class consciousness. I don't have high hopes for the second one winning.
I want people to think about that for a second though. Imagine in a decade cops have such a technological edge in both surveillance and force that you cannot even begin to protest billionaires enslaving you let alone stage a political revolution.
This headline is unfortunate. It will just feed people who suffer from mental illness with believes "see, police can track my phone and listen to me". I am so tired of irresponsible media misrepresenting what article is about in such a way to gain clicks, without thinking of the suffering this might cause.
Trust is really low that this will not be shadow-mined anyway. There’s far too much money to be made. This reads like greenwashing to me. Makes someone on the board feel good but in reality, fingerprinting and location data is still completely identifiable.
the example at the top of the article isn’t exactly the best example to show people why this software shouldn’t be allowed. they could go to the liquor store, and ask them to pull cameras, and with a warrant if needed. it just seems more powerful to say this software is useless and wasting taxpayer money.
but also, who is supplying location data to tangles? saying the ‘dark web’ is not helpful or informational, and honestly if the cops are just buying location data there’s nothing illegal about the search, because it’s not a search. you willingly provided your location data to this company who is then selling it, your beef is with them to stop selling your data if it’s not in their privacy policy. it smells like they’re just using social media and claiming they have this huge database on peoples locations. this sounds like a huge nothing burger to me.
basically: don’t use sketchy apps that sell your location to data brokers or just turn off your location data for that app.
If it's on the dark web isn't it also possible that it's hacked phone records? Seems like a nice way to bypass getting a warrant. Step 1, make sure hackers know you're in the market for phone company data. Step 2, hackers do their thing and sell it on the dark web. Step 3, police use intermediate tool like Tangles to "obtain probably cause" and "verify reasonable suspicion" based on the hacked records and focus their searches, all without any judge's say-so.
didn’t it say fresh receipt? how would tangles have live data from hacked phone records? also, yeah in that your phone company is at fault for violating your privacy.
Agree that using hacked sources is unethical and shouldn’t be done, but is there an actual law against law enforcement using hacked data? reporters can legally publish hacked sources.
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?
The interesting part here is that they are apparently no longer even trying to use parallel construction [0] to cover this stuff up. They somehow feel confident that just saying we have this technology, we don’t say how we use it, but we wind up on the right trail and then gather some evidence down the road we wound up on somehow.
Seems shaky at best. Smells of hubris.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
Nothing will change until and unless police start suffering severe consequences for breaking the law.
Such consequences will never come from the state.
> Such consequences will never come from the state.
Seattle’s consent decree directly contradicts this.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-returns-fu...
The idea that the SPD consent decree constituted "severe consequences", or was successful at all, is a joke.
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2026/01/video-cops-rallie...
> Why are they comfortable saying this?
They receive recognition for the results. Phone data was used in a large fraction of the cases against rioters in the 2021 capital attack. The Powers That Be were grateful that law enforcement were able to use phone data to either initially identify attackers or corroborate other evidence, and ultimately put people in prison. The justice system makes cases with this every day, and the victims of criminals are thankful for these results.
Tools like this are substantially different than time/location Bound geofences with warrants served to providers like were used in the Jan 6 investigations. And even those are under SCOTUS scrutiny for 4th amendment concerns.
Results compel expectations, and every "success" unlocks more latitude. A rational person cannot admire headlines that trumpet the wonderful achievements of digital dragnets in one case, and then suffer "concern" when more aggressive techniques are employed elsewhere: there are powerful incentives involved, as any thinking person should know. J6 was a big unlock for state surveillance; the results were met with gushing praise and no friction was incurred. Now, new bounds are being pushed and the tools proliferate, as the fine distinctions you cling to are blithely forgone.
I've heard a lot more recognition for Apple refusing to comply with unlocking iPhones over the years than any of these other cases.
appeal to emotion
I don't like being devil's advocate on this because I am strongly against the invasion of privacy at that point in the investigation, but without that data, they'd just take a bit longer to have identified the members of the insurrection. There's varying degrees of data you can glean from cellular networks as well, right down to "it was definitely this person, the phone logs show a FaceID unlock at X time" and that action can be inferred by network logs, all information that carriers have retained for over two decades.
What it does become is a data point in an evidential submission that can strengthen a case that could otherwise be argued back as a bit flaky. It's similar to DNA evidence in that it's not actually 100% reliable nor is the data handled forensically at every stage of collection, but it's treated as if it is.
I think it's weighted too heavily in evidence and should not be used as a fine-toothed comb to sweep for "evidence" when it can be so easily tainted or faked. At the same time, I'd love to see the current members of the pushback against ICE using this data fallacy against future prosecutions. "Yeah, I was at home, look" and actually it's just a replay of a touch or face ID login running from a packaged emulator, or whatever signature activities meet the evidential requirement.
They’re comfortable saying this because the US doesn’t have the rule of law, as evidenced by laws not applying to police.
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 than post a link, and elucidate your opinion in the future please, if it wasn't your intent, well, next time just please don't post, it's not a useful contribution to the discussion in this forum.
Those are the ones that were high profile enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, it's not exhaustive. Here's a more comprehensive database: https://policecrime.bgsu.edu/
You're still citing arrested, not charged and convicted though. Those are all different, with no guarantee of the officers facing repercussions beyond a brief arrest. While those are still consequences, they have to be consistently applied (which they don't seem to be for police officers in America) or have consequences for consistently poorly behaved officers
OK, now do prosecutors :)
Was that suspicious? I thought his face was plastered all over the news.
>"to verify reasonable suspicion that you already have”
Translation: "Sprinkle some crack on him and let's get the hell out of here."
Sounds a lot like 'parallel construction'.
Yeah seems like that's quite explicitly the goal. The question is, what means or method are they trying to hide and is it hyper illegal or just something they don't want to be pubic knowledge?
Both. It’s both hyper illegal and they don’t want you to know how they do it. It’s Pegasus 2.0
All of us who grew up with Law & Order are wondering why this dude is bragging about planting poisoned fruit trees.
I didn't know about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard.
The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again.
Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to be ready to hold ground until the more official military forces can arrive.
If we want to get really pedantic about 2A where are the well regulated militias?
Even if someone really is saying the thing you're claiming, 2A doesn't mention muskets at all or any other specific technology so that would be a really dumb thing for those people to say.
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 be the one piece of tech that would make them think twice.
claims like these require a source
Source for what?
That Thomas Jefferson would be cagey around nukes?
Or sources that Privateers were a thing?
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-drawn cannons, much more than just "home defense" handheld stuff.
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.
We’re obviously failing the expectations of the founding fathers if we don’t have civilian owned HIMARS.
I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer.
Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.
The Constitution explicitly states the government may grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private citizens.
What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?
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 suddenly be hired as a postman.
I believe the argument is that in order to have the Letters of Marque be useful, it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons.
So, to fit it into your analogy, I think it is more like the permission to establish a national postal service implies that the government in the past had not outlawed literacy. There is no need for the government to provide services where the only possible users are already breaking the law.
That said I’m not actually sure I believe this because ships have always been a bit weird legally, going about in international waters far away from any law enforcement… it wouldn’t surprise me if there was some specific cut out for weapons that were only to be used at sea or something…
> it must have been the case that captains had these types of weapons.
Some did, but that doesn't mean states couldn't (or didn't) have laws touching on it.
Similarly, I own and use a car today... but that doesn't mean "the state can't have safety requirements for vehicles", nor does it mean "the state can't bar a legally-blind 20-time DUI convict from driving."
> your analogy
I have a much better/closer one to offer. Consider that tomorrow the Federal legislature could grant a letter of Marque and Reprisal to someone who... Is a convicted murderer held on (state) death-row.
Does that possible wrinkle mean the original Constitution actually banned States from running their own prison systems all along? Does it mean only the federal government is allowed to sentence anybody to carceral punishment?
Obviously not, that'd be an insane conclusion... Yet the only difference here which realm of state law was "getting in the way." If a state can't have gun control because of an M&R letter, then it can't have prisons either.
>The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again.
That's an even worse argument because it's seemingly trying to both to do an motte-and-bailey and strawman at the same time. The motte and bailey comes from seemingly trying to present as sympathetic of an argument as possible. I mean, who's against reevaluating old laws? Strawman comes from the fact that from all the 2nd amendment supporters I've heard, nobody thinks it should be kept because we shouldn't be second-guessing the founding fathers or whatever. All their arguments are based on how guns aren't that dangerous, or how it serves some sort of practical purpose, like preventing state oppression or whatever. Whatever these arguments actually hold is another matter, of course, but at least "the 2nd amendment only applies to muskets" argument doesn't rely on a misrepresentation of the 2nd amendment proponents' views.
You've reduced this discussion to meta-debate (again, it seems) and it's stifling productive conversation.
> where are the well regulated militias?
They keep getting arrested because some fed informants show up and convince them to kidnap a governor of whatever before they can become "Well regulated".
This is really strong passive voice. I have to wonder if they were actually on track towards the "well regulated" part if some feds were able to convince them to kidnap a governor.
The State Guards are the militias
For example the Texas Guard:
https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard
Not that I’d ever want them near anything useful but that’s the answer
Incorrect, that would be the:
https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard
;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only.
However TX considers it more complicated than that:
The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard.
The Unorganized Militia: This consists of all "able-bodied" residents of the state who are at least 18 but under 45 years of age and are not members of the organized militia.
Don’t trust the cops, don’t trust the wealthy. Cops will abuse you, wealthy will exploit you.
It isn't black and white.
Deploy trust circumstantially.
The increasing fraction of “zingy catchphrase” HN comments compared to actually nuanced takes is depressing. Feels like a horrible mix of Reddit and tumblr
It's very cult like and no doubt a result of people unconsciously (or not) absorbing the endless spam of Bluesky screenshots (that always follow the mindless catchphrase/black and white logic pattern) you see on every other popular "social media" platform.
It’s not safe to trust someone implicitly because they have a uniform and/or a badge.
No it isn't black and white, but there sure isn't a whole lot of gray either.
And the poor will rob you, so trust nobody.
I've been robbed more frequently by the rich than the poor.
Of course I'm only one person.
That sounds like something a fed would say
That sounds like someone who have never interacted with poor people would say.
Isn’t this type of software illegal?
If I went to try and sell it , I’d be arrested.
I highly doubt that…
Pre-crime: powered by Grok Analysis
Title too long for submission. Original title:
Texas Police Invested Millions in a Shadowy Phone-Tracking Software. They Won’t Say How They’ve Used It.
Truly a "why say many words" title!
"Texas Police Won't Say How Used Shadowy Phone-Tracking Software Millions Spent On"?
My bet is they couldn't get past the InstallShield wizard.
You remember those cookie notices that you clicked on? Whatever you ”chose” to click, this kinda thing is where your data ended up getting ”processed”, irrespective of your ”privacy choices”.
This is like asking Google why they banned your account for fraud. Secrecy is important for slowing down bad actors.
Once again, using a computer system to launder a conclusion someone has already made
One day we will need to rip our freedoms back from these demons.
Don’t tread on me, huh?
We’re all just characters in a sim game played by the rich and powerful. Now it’s 24 / 7 surveillance. Eventually it will be 24 / 7 control.
The race is between the rich trying to achieve a level of surveillance based omnipotence such that rebellion/revolution/dissent/protest/etc are fundamentally impossible...and the US populace gaining class consciousness. I don't have high hopes for the second one winning.
I want people to think about that for a second though. Imagine in a decade cops have such a technological edge in both surveillance and force that you cannot even begin to protest billionaires enslaving you let alone stage a political revolution.
You get it. I’m also concerned that we’re past the point of no return.
We're already past the point of no return IMO. It's why people are having fewer kids.
They do surveys where they ask these questions. That's not a common answer.
And in fact, it's possible the latter is a direct and explicitly desired outcome of the former
This headline is unfortunate. It will just feed people who suffer from mental illness with believes "see, police can track my phone and listen to me". I am so tired of irresponsible media misrepresenting what article is about in such a way to gain clicks, without thinking of the suffering this might cause.
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.
Tracking the population without cause is never the right use case for anything.
Transit and traffic planners would be foaming at the mouth for real commute data like this instead of just fixed point count data.
Transit fare collection systems in many metros already log tap on / tap off location data and make it accessible to planners (and police).
Google has it
AFAIK they're moving their stuff to be on device
https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleMaps/comments/1diivt3/megathr...
Trust is really low that this will not be shadow-mined anyway. There’s far too much money to be made. This reads like greenwashing to me. Makes someone on the board feel good but in reality, fingerprinting and location data is still completely identifiable.
>Tracking the population without cause is never the right use case for anything.
Agreed. Which is why I submitted this in the first place. But AFAICT, it's orthogonal to GP's comment. Or not. Which is why I asked for clarification.
the example at the top of the article isn’t exactly the best example to show people why this software shouldn’t be allowed. they could go to the liquor store, and ask them to pull cameras, and with a warrant if needed. it just seems more powerful to say this software is useless and wasting taxpayer money.
but also, who is supplying location data to tangles? saying the ‘dark web’ is not helpful or informational, and honestly if the cops are just buying location data there’s nothing illegal about the search, because it’s not a search. you willingly provided your location data to this company who is then selling it, your beef is with them to stop selling your data if it’s not in their privacy policy. it smells like they’re just using social media and claiming they have this huge database on peoples locations. this sounds like a huge nothing burger to me.
basically: don’t use sketchy apps that sell your location to data brokers or just turn off your location data for that app.
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/location-data-broker-g...
If it's on the dark web isn't it also possible that it's hacked phone records? Seems like a nice way to bypass getting a warrant. Step 1, make sure hackers know you're in the market for phone company data. Step 2, hackers do their thing and sell it on the dark web. Step 3, police use intermediate tool like Tangles to "obtain probably cause" and "verify reasonable suspicion" based on the hacked records and focus their searches, all without any judge's say-so.
didn’t it say fresh receipt? how would tangles have live data from hacked phone records? also, yeah in that your phone company is at fault for violating your privacy.
Agree that using hacked sources is unethical and shouldn’t be done, but is there an actual law against law enforcement using hacked data? reporters can legally publish hacked sources.
You have to love when the media describes something as "shadowy." They're not even trying to hide their bias.
Whereas you’re happy to air yours. I guess that’s something.