Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

Concerns about surveillance and civil liberties

• Many see phone-tracking tools like Tangles as inherently dangerous, especially for warrantless, population-scale tracking.
• Strong worry that data is used to “find” probable cause rather than support existing evidence, undermining core rights.
• Several fear a trajectory toward 24/7 surveillance and, eventually, control, making dissent or protest practically impossible.

Legality, warrants, and “parallel construction”

• Multiple commenters liken this to “parallel construction”: using questionable data to guide investigations, then backfilling a legal-looking evidentiary trail.
• Some argue police are now openly describing behavior they once tried to hide, signaling confidence that courts and the public won’t stop them.
• Others note that tools used in cases like Jan 6 (geofence warrants) are already being challenged under the 4th Amendment; these newer tools seem even less constrained.

Data sources, dark web, and brokers

• Debate over where Tangles gets location data: dark web, hacked records, or commercial data brokers.
• One view: if data is bought from brokers, it may technically not be a “search,” shifting the blame to shady apps and weak privacy policies.
• Others worry police could indirectly incentivize hacking (buying leaked telco data via intermediaries) to bypass judicial oversight; legality of this is flagged as unclear.

Utility vs abuse

• Some note that location data is already used for beneficial purposes (transit planning, traffic analysis).
• Others counter that “tracking the population without cause” is never acceptable, regardless of potential public-good applications.
• Question raised whether the showcased example in the article actually demonstrates unique value, or just wastes money on flashy tech vs traditional warrants and cameras.

Constitution, policing, and accountability

• Long tangent into constitutional interpretation, especially the 2nd Amendment and “originalism,” reflects broader distrust of how rights evolve with technology.
• Several argue the U.S. lacks meaningful rule-of-law for police; sanctions are rare and often symbolic, though others cite consent decrees and liability insurance as partial checks.
• Strong sentiment that secrecy might be appropriate against criminals, but transparency is essential to restrain government abuse.

Media framing, mental health, and discourse quality

• Some criticize the article’s “shadowy” headline as clickbait and biased; others say that matches the reality of secretive surveillance firms.
• One commenter worries such headlines exacerbate paranoia for people with psychosis; others respond that civil-liberties threats outweigh that concern.
• Meta-discussion: complaints that HN is drifting toward Reddit-style, slogan-driven, politicized commenting; some want less politics, others say it’s too late.
• A few emphasize the importance of funding local journalism, noting local outlets are doing this kind of watchdog work more than national media.