7 ms·

It is 4 trucks for the state police, and it is a big state.

by WillPostForFood 3mo ago

OutOfHere 3mo ago
Mass surveillance is prohibited by the Constitution. The majority of the funds went toward it.
- fhdkweig 3mo ago
  State or federal constitution?
  - OutOfHere 3mo ago
    It is prohibited by the nation's Constitution which overrules all contained regions. The contained regions can add further restrictions, not lower them.
    - fhdkweig 3mo ago
      I'm pretty sure that surveillance is not mentioned in the US Constitution. They didn't really have a concept of surveillance. Can you quote the line?
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      - OutOfHere 3mo ago
        The Supreme Court has over multiple cases recognized that the collection of mass digital information can implicate Fourth Amendment protections. Here is the foundational line: > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It clearly says: The right of the people to to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches shall not be violated.
        fhdkweig 3mo ago
        Well the problem comes down to what is considered "unreasonable searches". When I think "surveillance", I think cameras on cars that photograph everything they pass by. The courts have again and again considered those to be reasonable with no expectations of privacy. And the trucks in this article are doing exactly that.
        DangitBobby 3mo ago
        Wireless cell communications have no expectation of privacy?
        cwmoore 3mo ago
        Have you asserted or waived your rights? You may have the right to consult an attorney.
        OutOfHere 3mo ago
        Constitutionally granted rights cannot be waived, no matter what a legal agreement says.
        rationalist 3mo ago
        You can certainly do so, such as waiving the right to a jury trial.
        OutOfHere 3mo ago
        Yes. People can waive a trial altogether, even a trial by judge. It has to be done in front of a judge, and is limited to that trial for that person.
        cwmoore 3mo ago
        High certainty statement, where did you get that from?
  - cucumber3732842 3mo ago
    Under the 4th amendment which has been incorperated against the states in the 1960s.
- alwa 3mo ago
  Maybe so, but four physical trucks, interpreting physical radio waves in their immediate vicinity, allocated across the whole state of Texas… that’s “targeted,” not “mass.”
  - CWuestefeld 3mo ago
    I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding the definition of "targeted". It has nothing to do with the total capacity of the system, it's about the ability differentiate a specific target from everything else. The design of these systems is the opposite of that: they're intended to intercept everything within their reach. The fact that with only four devices, their reach isn't (yet) so great has no bearing.
    - alwa 3mo ago
      It’s the “within their reach” that constitutes the targeting, it seems to me. Maybe “particularized scrutiny” is a better word? Each fancy radio can only be in one place at one time, and presumably with a human operator in the vehicle or wearing the backpack. Which emulates a cell station, not all tens of thousands of them in the state simultaneously. That feels much more like “DUI checkpoint checking all cars on this road at this time,” or “canvassing the neighborhood around the crime,” or “the stadium operator invited the cops into the security office to watch their CCTV feeds during the big game.” Precipitated on some reason—maybe not the specific human, but something that’s different about that place and time that warrants a human targeting their attention there. As opposed to the network-level, “all communications between all people all the time just in case” that constituted the “mass” surveillance that Snowden described (and Flock has since innovated and extended to the physical world).
      - FireBeyond 3mo ago
        > Each fancy radio can only be in one place at one time 5G mid-band (let's go with the charitable option) has an effective range of up to 2miles. So no big deal, just all 5G communications within up to a 12sq mi circle surrounding the vehicle. Don't think that's exactly "targeted".
nilamo 3mo ago
4 trucks... That can intercept and record all nearby 5g traffic? That's not even useful for police lmao

It is 4 trucks for the state police, and it is a big state.

OutOfHere 3mo ago

Mass surveillance is prohibited by the Constitution. The majority of the funds went toward it.

fhdkweig 3mo ago
State or federal constitution?
- OutOfHere 3mo ago
  It is prohibited by the nation's Constitution which overrules all contained regions. The contained regions can add further restrictions, not lower them.
  - fhdkweig 3mo ago
    I'm pretty sure that surveillance is not mentioned in the US Constitution. They didn't really have a concept of surveillance. Can you quote the line?
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - OutOfHere 3mo ago
      The Supreme Court has over multiple cases recognized that the collection of mass digital information can implicate Fourth Amendment protections. Here is the foundational line: > "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." It clearly says: The right of the people to to be secure in their persons and effects against unreasonable searches shall not be violated.
      - fhdkweig 3mo ago
        Well the problem comes down to what is considered "unreasonable searches". When I think "surveillance", I think cameras on cars that photograph everything they pass by. The courts have again and again considered those to be reasonable with no expectations of privacy. And the trucks in this article are doing exactly that.
        DangitBobby 3mo ago
        Wireless cell communications have no expectation of privacy?
        cwmoore 3mo ago
        Have you asserted or waived your rights? You may have the right to consult an attorney.
        OutOfHere 3mo ago
        Constitutionally granted rights cannot be waived, no matter what a legal agreement says.
        rationalist 3mo ago
        You can certainly do so, such as waiving the right to a jury trial.
        OutOfHere 3mo ago
        Yes. People can waive a trial altogether, even a trial by judge. It has to be done in front of a judge, and is limited to that trial for that person.
        cwmoore 3mo ago
        High certainty statement, where did you get that from?
- cucumber3732842 3mo ago
  Under the 4th amendment which has been incorperated against the states in the 1960s.
alwa 3mo ago
Maybe so, but four physical trucks, interpreting physical radio waves in their immediate vicinity, allocated across the whole state of Texas… that’s “targeted,” not “mass.”
- CWuestefeld 3mo ago
  I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding the definition of "targeted". It has nothing to do with the total capacity of the system, it's about the ability differentiate a specific target from everything else. The design of these systems is the opposite of that: they're intended to intercept everything within their reach. The fact that with only four devices, their reach isn't (yet) so great has no bearing.
  - alwa 3mo ago
    It’s the “within their reach” that constitutes the targeting, it seems to me. Maybe “particularized scrutiny” is a better word? Each fancy radio can only be in one place at one time, and presumably with a human operator in the vehicle or wearing the backpack. Which emulates a cell station, not all tens of thousands of them in the state simultaneously. That feels much more like “DUI checkpoint checking all cars on this road at this time,” or “canvassing the neighborhood around the crime,” or “the stadium operator invited the cops into the security office to watch their CCTV feeds during the big game.” Precipitated on some reason—maybe not the specific human, but something that’s different about that place and time that warrants a human targeting their attention there. As opposed to the network-level, “all communications between all people all the time just in case” that constituted the “mass” surveillance that Snowden described (and Flock has since innovated and extended to the physical world).
    - FireBeyond 3mo ago
      > Each fancy radio can only be in one place at one time 5G mid-band (let's go with the charitable option) has an effective range of up to 2miles. So no big deal, just all 5G communications within up to a 12sq mi circle surrounding the vehicle. Don't think that's exactly "targeted".

nilamo 3mo ago

4 trucks... That can intercept and record all nearby 5g traffic? That's not even useful for police lmao