> 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?
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.
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.
Seems shaky at best. Smells of hubris.
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...
https://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2026/01/video-cops-rallie...
Translation: "Sprinkle some crack on him and let's get the hell out of here."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?
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.
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".
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
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.
Deploy trust circumstantially.
If I went to try and sell it , I’d be arrested.
Texas Police Invested Millions in a Shadowy Phone-Tracking Software. They Won’t Say How They’ve Used It.
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...
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.
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.
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?
The example given at the top of the article. We want Tangle or whatever used idiotically to strike down its use in federal court.
https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleMaps/comments/1diivt3/megathr...
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.