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 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Wireless cell communications have no expectation of privacy?

▲

cwmoore a day ago | parent [-]

Have you asserted or waived your rights? You may have the right to consult an attorney.

▲

DangitBobby a day ago | parent | next [-]

I certainly have no agreement with the Texas police or any government through which I could have waived any rights.

▲

OutOfHere a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Constitutionally granted rights cannot be waived, no matter what a legal agreement says.

▲

cwmoore 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

High certainty statement, where did you get that from?

▲

rationalist a day ago | parent | prev [-]

You can certainly do so, such as waiving the right to a jury trial.

	▲	OutOfHere a day ago \| parent [-]
		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.

▲

estearum a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Uhh FalcoNet doesn't photograph cars. It snoops telecom traffic. And no, SCOTUS has certainly not found that the government is allowed to just arbitrarily snoop telecom traffic.