← Back to context Comment by JumpCrisscross 16 hours ago I hate the concept. But this is not the right case to test the tool against. 10 comments JumpCrisscross Reply nobody9999 16 hours ago >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? JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago > 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. nilamo 16 hours ago Tracking the population without cause is never the right use case for anything. asdff 15 hours ago Transit and traffic planners would be foaming at the mouth for real commute data like this instead of just fixed point count data. 4 replies → nobody9999 16 hours ago >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.
nobody9999 16 hours ago >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? JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago > 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. nilamo 16 hours ago Tracking the population without cause is never the right use case for anything. asdff 15 hours ago Transit and traffic planners would be foaming at the mouth for real commute data like this instead of just fixed point count data. 4 replies → nobody9999 16 hours ago >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.
JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago > 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.
nilamo 16 hours ago Tracking the population without cause is never the right use case for anything. asdff 15 hours ago Transit and traffic planners would be foaming at the mouth for real commute data like this instead of just fixed point count data. 4 replies → nobody9999 16 hours ago >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.
asdff 15 hours ago Transit and traffic planners would be foaming at the mouth for real commute data like this instead of just fixed point count data. 4 replies →
nobody9999 16 hours ago >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.
>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.
4 replies →
>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.