> 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?
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.
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.
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?
Was that suspicious? I thought his face was plastered all over the news.
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?
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.
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”.
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.
"Texas Police Won't Say How Used Shadowy Phone-Tracking Software Millions Spent On"?
Truly a "why say many words" title!
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.
Google has it
AFAIK they're moving their stuff to be on device
https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleMaps/comments/1diivt3/megathr...
>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.
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.