Item — HN Reader

Answer: Military Grade surveillance tech

> Naturally, it wasn’t just $4.5 million for four 2026 Chevy Tahoes, though the SUVs themselves were still bizarrely expensive at $150,000 a piece. Here’s how the purchase order breaks down:

- FalcoNet Core System (x4): $2,850,000

- Unlicensed FalcoNet core system: $200,000

- Delta 5G Perpetual license for FalcoNet V (x4): $280,000

- 2026 Chevrolet Tahoe (x4): $600,000

- FalcoNet Backpack core V2 – 6 x BTS (2G/3G/4G/5G): $355,500

- Flexable [sic] antenna kit: $27,000

- Cognyte PA Ranger: $105,000

- Unlicensed FalcoNet Backpack core V2 – 6 x BTS (2G/3G/4G/5G): $70,000

- Total PO Amount: $4,487,500

3 comments

The obvious question then becomes why 4 military-grade surveillance Tech Tahoes are needed.

Was three not enough for the current demand for military grade surveillance by the police?

Why is there so much demand for military grade surveillance? Is there a better way to address that core need?

A million bucks buys a lot of essential services.

> Why is there so much demand for military grade surveillance?

Because there's just not enough room in the budget for things like community engagement, rehabilitation programs, and similar things, so we have to spend millions on military surveillance gear to compensate for the absence of community engagement, rehabilitation programs, and similar things. Isn't it obvious?

John Oliver did a report on militarization of police 11 years ago. It's only become worse since: https://youtu.be/KUdHIatS36A?is=C86HI8463VZnqjXU

And Radley Balko blogged about it every day 20 years ago before publishing a book in 2013 literally subtitled as The Militarization of America’s Police

The cartels have also militarized. Bit of a vicious cycle we’re in.

Yes, the cartels have always been at war with the Texas Department of Public Safety Criminal Investigation Division...

You say it sarcastically, but any law enforcement agency is an enemy of the cartels goals and therefore at risk in the event of intervention.

When was the last confirmed cartel violence against any US LEA on US soil?

Cartel leadership have openly stated that any such thing would be the height of counterproductive stupidity on their part due to the overwhelming response that it would elicit.

The last confirmed incident was in the 90s. There was an incident in Texas a couple of days after Trump was inaugurated but this seems a little lacking in concrete details or threat: across the river, no video evidence, no injuries, no bullets recovered, no suspects, no identification, just a broad "description" of the shooters as "likely cartel members".

Do you think that cartel leadership would view any such thing as being counterproductive if the law enforcement agencies were not militarized?

lol yes. IF something like that were to happen, the US military is and always has been ready and willing to respond to attacks and that has been the case LONG before our CIVILIAN police started arming up to the teeth, like they’re ready for war.

The cartels have long been wary of US armed response to their actions, and the militarization of the police in the US, while certainly a further deterrent, is much closer to a deterrent against CIVILIAN misconduct and works insanely well as a chilling effect against protestors and unruly gatherings. Yay America!!!!

Yes? Because it would not be the local law enforcement agency that would respond to any provocations, but rather the federal government/military.

Well, the US could cut their weapons supply the moment they wanted, but I wonder why that's never been an option.

Every police station needs to be a mini-CIA, surely.

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

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

State or federal constitution?

It is prohibited by the nation's Constitution which overrules all contained regions. The contained regions can add further restrictions, not lower them.

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?

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.

Under the 4th amendment which has been incorperated against the states in the 1960s.

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.”

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.

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).

> DUI checkpoint checking all cars on this road at this time

isnt this only allowed in that you need a license to drive?

theres no equivalent where the cops camp a walkway and demand everyone show whats in their pockets

> 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".

If I install one great big Dr Evil dish that records all web traffic in texas, that would be mass. I have no idea how far these vehicles surveil, but I'm guess it's very far.

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

You'd think the real CIA would get pissy about these upstarts and stomp em.

Maybe the Chevy Tahoes were priced as the initial capex, and a maintenance and support contract covering capex and opex for the next X years with a local dealership? I’ve sometimes seen this in corporate budgeting. Some companies prefer to lock in support and maintenance in advance for a more expensive fixed price instead of pay a variable but lower price over the same time period because of the budgeting vagaries that entails.

Considering the amount of time and the number of expensive management staff involved in them I’ve seen some budgeting knife fights burn up, I see the logic.