Why are they comfortable saying this?<p>> 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.<p>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.<p>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?
> Why are they comfortable saying this?<p>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.
J6 was a completely standard use case to confirm someone’s location in the Capitol with the location data from providers. It wasn’t some novel or breakthrough use, and not everything in life is a slippery slope so it’s completely rational to approve of a technology to convict those involved in a crime and decry more advanced and less legal means purely for surveillance of people who haven’t committed any crimes.
I've heard a lot more recognition for Apple refusing to comply with unlocking iPhones over the years than any of these other cases.
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.<p>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.<p>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'd just take a bit longer to have identified the members of the insurrection<p>They'd have had to enjoin more parties, probably to include state agencies. Any party can push back, stall or blow the whistle if they feel something wrong and risky to them is happening. Which is exactly the opposite of what the feds want. They want to act unilaterally, on anything and everything.
Without getting too political, the US is observably turning agencies over to their own people for exactly reasons like this, the feared "deep state".<p>I suspect we're about to see all kinds of abuses of information in the US.
appeal to emotion
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.<p>Seems shaky at best. Smells of hubris.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction</a>
They’re comfortable saying this because the US doesn’t have the rule of law, as evidenced by laws not applying to police.
"Without" regulations? As early as 2006 we discovered that phone carriers were subject to regulations forcing them to install back doors for government surveillance. Many near the 2002 Olympic games had their phone calls listened to by human ears (NSA) without warrant. And that's just a random example. This has been going on much much longer.<p>Regulations are made or dismantled in an effort to funnel money into regulators own businesses or investments and to combat their political opponents, all under the premise that it's for the good of society. (And, in some cases it has been.)<p>This shouldn't be news to anyone. What's shocking is that this is still shocking to people.
>"to verify reasonable suspicion that you already have”<p>Translation: "Sprinkle some crack on him and let's get the hell out of here."
Was that suspicious? I thought his face was plastered all over the news.
That quote is Boyd's criminal confession.
Sounds a lot like 'parallel construction'.
All of us who grew up with Law & Order are wondering why this dude is bragging about planting poisoned fruit trees.
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.<p>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.<p>/s?<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>If we want to get really pedantic about 2A where are the well regulated militias?<p>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 <i>warships</i> were a regular thing for the wealthy.<p>They would absolutely not have a problem with modern weapons.<p>They would probably have allowed private ownership of missiles launchers with the right authorization.<p>They were pretty clear that the average person should have the same capability as the state. They were a different breed.<p>I think nuclear weapons would be the one piece of tech that would make them think twice.
claims like these require a source
Tanks for all! /s<p>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.<p>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.<p>We are in a weird place at this moment where the tide turned and lots of jurisprudence is being switched. Also, with ICE / DHS acting as unprofessional as they are, I wouldn’t be surprised to see lots of Dems advocate for more individual gun rights.
> Tanks for all!<p>"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.<p>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?<p>> 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.<p>Tell me what <i>United States v Miller</i> was about then?<p>Why do the Federalist papers disagree with everything you are saying, repeatedly?<p>> we inherited English Common Law which limited carrying guns in populated areas.<p>Federalist #46:<p>"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."<p>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?
> 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?<p>It was settled for the first time with Heller in 2008, which was not long ago. That SCOTUS decision was supposedly the first to affirm that there was an individual right to carry (not as part of a militia).<p>Your quote from Federalist 46 doesn’t disprove what I said.<p>And the Heller decision was 5-4 with one of the dissenting justices claiming it was such a terrible ruling that there should be a constitutional amendment to fix it[1].<p>You might want to spend some more time with an open mind. You seem extremely confident, but your facts don’t back up such confidence.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-stevens-court-failed-gun-control/587272/" rel="nofollow">https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-...</a>
When the second amendment was passed, a "well-regulated militia" was already a thing people did, required and defined by the Articles of Confederation.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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 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.<p>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.
The State Guards are the militias<p>For example the Texas Guard:<p><a href="https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard" rel="nofollow">https://tmd.texas.gov/army-guard</a><p>Not that I’d ever want them near anything useful but that’s the answer
Incorrect, that would be the:<p><a href="https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard" rel="nofollow">https://tmd.texas.gov/state-guard</a><p>;) they are NOT the National Guard. They are the militia of Texas. (Texas State Guard aka TXSG). Subordinate to the state gov, only.<p>However TX considers it more complicated than that:<p>The Organized Militia: Consisting of the Texas Army National Guard, the Texas Air National Guard, and the Texas State Guard.<p>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.
> where are the well regulated militias?<p>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".
Yes, /s, they're advocating for it to be more of a work-in-progress document, and not considered something final in its current state.<p>The last pull request got accepted into main in 1992 after being stuck in the per review stage for no less than 202 years. The latest one out of 4 that still remain open ("no child labour") celebrated its 100th year anniversary 18 months ago because for some reason 15 states rejected to approve it and 2 of the states haven't even bothered to address it. 12 of the 28 that gave their approval also rejected it initially but then changed their opinion down the line.
There's definitely an argument to be made here, though.<p>I think everyone can agree that if the founding fathers knew about modern warfare they would <i>probably</i> feel different about a variety of things. Or, at least, consider them more carefully.
[dead]
I didn't know about it. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction</a>
> Tangles scrapes information from the open, deep, and dark webs and is the premier product of Cobwebs Technologies, a cybersecurity company founded in 2014 by three former members of special units in the Israeli military.<p>If I had a dime for every time a sketchy "cybersecurity"/surveillance software ended up being developed by an Israeli firm...
An underappreciated point here is: fund/subscribe your local papers. They are willing to do work and investigations that national outlets just don't have the capacity or stomach for. The more concentrated/centralized journalism is the higher the risk it can get censored/leveraged.
Title too long for submission. Original title:<p>Texas Police Invested Millions in a Shadowy Phone-Tracking Software. They Won’t Say How They’ve Used It.
This is like asking Google why they banned your account for fraud. Secrecy is important for slowing down bad actors.
Isn’t this type of software illegal?<p>If I went to try and sell it , I’d be arrested.
But who's gonna arrest the police? Seems like more and more people are testing/stretching the limits of what's actually enforced.<p>Similarly, hearing about the Eppstein files makes me sick:<p>- deadlines? not met
- limited redactions? full documents redacted
- redactions explained? not at all
I highly doubt that…
Pre-crime: powered by Grok Analysis
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”.
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.
One day we will need to rip our freedoms back from these demons.
My bet is they couldn't get past the InstallShield wizard.
[flagged]
Please don't post generic ideological rhetoric on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a>
It isn't black and white.<p>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
Yeah we’re not supposed to talk about how “HN is turning into Reddit”, but it already has. For years now. A typical comment here has been indistinguishable from a typical Reddit comment for many years, with the exception that humor is a lot less common here (although even that has changed a ton.)<p>The argument is that “HN is turning into Reddit” has been said since the beginning of HN… but that doesn’t make it wrong. To me the transformation is already complete. Regression to the mean is unavoidable.
Its the inevitable result when you allow politics to enter a forum. It used to be posts that were overtly political were considered off-topic, but that has become more normalized. Hell ignoring this post, the top story right now is "American importers and consumers bear the cost of 2025 tariffs: analysis" which is just another political post masquerading. I wish we would just ban politics or maybe find a middle-ground like allowing overtly political posts one day a week. It's probably too late to save HN though, the community has already normalized these posts.
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.
[flagged]
I've been robbed more frequently by the rich than the poor.<p>Of course I'm only one person.
Please don't post flamebait on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a>
[flagged]
Once again, using a computer system to launder a conclusion someone has already made
Don’t tread on me, huh?
[dead]
[dead]
I hate the concept. But this is not the right case to test the tool against.
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.
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.<p>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.<p>basically: don’t use sketchy apps that sell your location to data brokers or just turn off your location data for that app.<p><a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/location-data-broker-gravy-analytics-was-seemingly-hacked-experts-say-rcna187038" rel="nofollow">https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/location-data-broker-g...</a>
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.<p>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.