Texas Cops’ Secretive Phone-Tracking Tool Raises Big Costs, Bigger Civil Liberties Fears

Read Articleadded Jan 19, 2026
Texas Cops’ Secretive Phone-Tracking Tool Raises Big Costs, Bigger Civil Liberties Fears

Texas police and federal agencies are investing millions in Tangles, a geofencing tool that tracks historical phone locations via commercial ad data without warrants. Officials tout safety benefits but provide virtually no concrete case results, while defense attorneys and public records reveal little to no transparency. Civil liberties groups warn this is an end-run around Carpenter and due process, leaving the public to question whether the tool is ineffective or secretly used to bypass judicial oversight.

Key Points

  • Tangles/WebLoc allows warrantless historical device tracking via commercial ad-tech data, raising Carpenter-era Fourth Amendment concerns.
  • Texas agencies, especially DPS, have spent millions on Tangles while offering few or no verifiable examples of case outcomes or arrests tied to the tool.
  • Public records are sparse or withheld; defense attorneys report no disclosures mentioning Tangles, fueling transparency and due process worries.
  • PenLink claims legality and public-safety benefits, but critics say buying data circumvents judicial oversight and enables mass surveillance.
  • Real-world use appears limited and opaque; even some users caution against abuse, and validated success stories remain elusive.

Sentiment

The Hacker News discussion exhibits an overwhelmingly critical and concerned sentiment, largely agreeing with the article's premise that Tangles and similar surveillance technologies pose significant threats to privacy and constitutional rights. Commenters express cynicism regarding the current state of surveillance, the legal system's ability to adapt, and the future of civil liberties, with only a few attempting to justify or downplay the concerns.

In Agreement

  • Using software like Tangles to find probable cause or verify suspicion without a warrant is a massive violation of fundamental rights.
  • The purchase of commercial location data is an illegitimate end-run around the Supreme Court's Carpenter ruling, which requires warrants for cell-site data, making it substantially different from previous legal geofence warrants.
  • Law enforcement is likely employing 'parallel construction' to obscure the true origins of evidence derived from Tangles, intentionally hiding how they reach conclusions.
  • The technology is considered 'hyper illegal,' and authorities deliberately conceal its usage methods to avoid public scrutiny and legal challenges.
  • The Constitution's protections should evolve to remain relevant with technological advancements, ensuring fundamental rights are retained in a modern society.
  • The lack of transparency suggests the technology might be a 'costly boondoggle' or is being used in ways hidden from the public and courts, threatening constitutional privacy rights.
  • Tracking the population without cause is an unacceptable use case for any technology, regardless of its potential benefits.
  • This technology represents a dangerous societal trend towards surveillance-based omnipotence that could suppress dissent, protest, and revolution, leading to a point of no return for civil liberties.
  • User 'cookie notices' and privacy choices are rendered meaningless, as personal location data still ends up being processed and sold to services like Tangles, irrespective of user preferences.

Opposed

  • Law enforcement is justified in using such tools because they yield positive results, aiding in the identification of criminals and corroborating evidence, as demonstrated in cases like the 2021 Capitol attack.
  • The article's primary example (liquor store receipt) is not compelling enough to effectively argue against the software's use, potentially making the tool seem useless rather than genuinely dangerous.
  • If police purchase location data from data brokers, it does not constitute an illegal 'search' because users willingly provide their data to companies that then sell it; the legal burden lies with data brokers and user agreements.
  • Individuals should take responsibility for their own privacy by avoiding 'sketchy apps' or proactively disabling location data on their devices.
  • The media's use of emotionally charged terms like 'shadowy' demonstrates a clear bias against law enforcement and its tools.
  • Secrecy regarding the use of such tools can be important for slowing down 'bad actors' and maintaining operational effectiveness.