> 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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.)
This shouldn't be news to anyone. What's shocking is that this is still shocking to people.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
The increasing fraction of “zingy catchphrase” HN comments compared to actually nuanced takes is depressing. Feels like a horrible mix of Reddit and tumblr
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.
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?
> 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.
2 replies →
I've heard a lot more recognition for Apple refusing to comply with unlocking iPhones over the years than any of these other cases.
2 replies →
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.
2 replies →
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.
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.
5 replies →
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...
5 replies →
"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.
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.)
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”
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?
Both. It’s both hyper illegal and they don’t want you to know how they do it. It’s Pegasus 2.0
2 replies →
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.
33 replies →
[dead]
I didn't know about it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_construction
> 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.
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:
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"?
This is like asking Google why they banned your account for fraud. Secrecy is important for slowing down bad actors.
Transparency is also important for slowing down bad government actors.
Isn’t this type of software illegal?
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.
Similarly, hearing about the Eppstein files makes me sick:
- 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.
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.
4 replies →
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. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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
4 replies →
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.
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. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[flagged]
2 replies →
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.
>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.
6 replies →
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 exacerbation of schizophrenic symptoms is a problem that pales in comparison to the infringement of our civil rights.
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.