Shadows Over Texas: The Hidden Reach of Police Phone-Tracking Tech

In the vast expanse of Texas, where law enforcement agencies grapple with border security and criminal networks, a shadowy tool has emerged as a cornerstone of modern policing. Known as Tangles, this surveillance software allows officers to track cellphones without traditional warrants, raising alarms among civil liberties advocates. Purchased through multimillion-dollar contracts, Tangles has been integrated into operations like the state’s anti-smuggling task forces, yet details on its deployment remain shrouded in secrecy. This technology, developed by PenLink, taps into vast datasets from apps and location services, enabling police to map movements and connections with unprecedented ease.

The origins of Tangles trace back to its acquisition by PenLink from Cobwebs Technologies, a firm previously scrutinized for its role in global surveillance markets. According to reporting from the Texas Observer, the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) committed to a five-year, $5.3 million contract for Tangles in 2024, dwarfing similar deals by federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This investment underscores Texas’ aggressive push into AI-driven policing, fueled by initiatives such as Operation Lone Star, which targets human smuggling along the border.

Critics argue that Tangles circumvents constitutional protections by relying on commercially available data rather than court-approved surveillance. One sheriff involved in an anti-smuggling task force described it as a means to “develop leads to eventually obtain probable cause,” but experts from groups like the American Civil Liberties Union contend it erodes privacy rights. The software’s ability to analyze location data from millions of devices without oversight has sparked debates over its legality, particularly in a state where border enforcement often blurs lines between security and overreach.

Unveiling the Tech Behind the Tracking

Tangles operates by aggregating data from smartphone apps, Wi-Fi signals, and other digital footprints, creating detailed profiles of individuals’ movements. Unlike traditional cell-site simulators or “stingrays,” which require physical deployment, Tangles leverages cloud-based analytics to query vast databases in real time. This capability has proven invaluable in investigations, from drug trafficking to human smuggling, but its lack of transparency troubles observers. Recent posts on X highlight public unease, with users decrying the tool as a step toward a “police state” in Texas, where license-plate readers and now phone trackers form an interconnected web of monitoring.

The software’s integration into local sheriff departments adds another layer of complexity. For instance, sheriffs in counties like Bexar and Johnson have access to Tangles through shared task forces, allowing them to bypass some federal restrictions. A report from the Electronic Frontier Foundation revealed how similar surveillance tools were misused in an abortion investigation, where deputies queried data under the guise of a missing-person case, only for records to show it was tied to a “death investigation” of a fetus. This incident illustrates the potential for mission creep, where tools designed for border security extend into personal matters.

Moreover, Tangles’ predecessors faced international backlash. Before PenLink’s acquisition, Cobwebs Technologies was banned by Meta in 2021 for operating in a “surveillance-for-hire” ecosystem, with clients spanning governments worldwide. The American Prospect detailed how Texas agencies, including Dallas and Houston police, adopted these tools amid Operation Lone Star’s expansion, which has ballooned the state’s surveillance arsenal. Lawmakers have proposed modest regulations, but as one Pulitzer Center piece noted, these offer few guardrails against AI overreach.

Border Battles and Broader Implications

Operation Lone Star, launched by Governor Greg Abbott in 2021, has supercharged Texas’ use of advanced tech, with Tangles playing a pivotal role in anti-smuggling efforts. Sheriffs leading these task forces praise the software for generating leads that lead to arrests, yet they remain tight-lipped on specifics. A recent investigation by the Houston Chronicle exposed pitfalls in such practices, detailing a Bexar County traffic stop where surveillance intel led to a questionable search, highlighting critics’ concerns about pretextual stops and rights violations.

Public sentiment, as reflected in recent X discussions, amplifies these worries. Posts from journalists and activists point to Tangles as emblematic of unchecked police power, with one viral thread warning of a “secret license-plate network” expanding into phone tracking. This echoes broader national debates, where tools like Flock Safety’s cameras—used in Texas for abortion-related probes—have tracked individuals across states, as covered in a Guardian opinion piece. The fusion of phone data with automated license-plate readers creates a comprehensive monitoring system, capable of reconstructing personal lives without judicial review.

Civil liberties groups are pushing back, arguing that Tangles violates the Fourth Amendment by treating commercial data as fair game. In Texas, where state police have geared up for massive tech expansions, the lack of disclosure fuels suspicion. The Pulitzer Center reported on lawmakers’ tepid responses, filing bills that address AI use but fall short of banning warrantless tracking. Meanwhile, federal agencies’ smaller-scale adoption of Tangles suggests Texas is at the forefront, potentially setting precedents for other states.

Scrutiny and Calls for Accountability

As scrutiny intensifies, Texas agencies defend their investments by citing successes in combating crime. Yet, the refusal to detail Tangles’ applications—often justified by ongoing investigations—has led to lawsuits and public records requests. A San Antonio Current article mirrored the Texas Observer’s findings, noting that civil liberties experts view the tool as a constitutional violation. This opacity extends to other tech, like AI-edited mugshots in League City, which prompted a policy review after public outcry, as reported by Police1.

On X, recent posts from tech watchers and privacy advocates underscore the urgency, with discussions linking Tangles to dystopian fears of constant surveillance. One account highlighted a case where a citizen’s “suspicious” travel patterns, flagged by license-plate readers, led to an illegal search—mirroring broader concerns about data-driven profiling. These sentiments align with EFF warnings that mass surveillance undermines reproductive rights, as seen in a 2025 case where 83,000 cameras tracked a woman post-abortion.

The interplay between state and federal oversight complicates reform. While DPS emails and meeting minutes reveal shared access among sheriffs, the software’s global roots raise questions about data security. Meta’s 2021 ban on Cobwebs exposed operations in countries like Saudi Arabia and Poland, per the American Prospect, suggesting Texas’ use could inadvertently support problematic international practices.

Pushing for Transparency in Policing

Advocates demand greater transparency, proposing requirements for warrants and public audits of tools like Tangles. In Texas, where border dynamics drive tech adoption, balancing security with privacy remains elusive. The Guardian’s commentary on dystopian realities in the state resonates, as surveillance extends from phones to vehicles, creating a web that ensnares ordinary citizens.

Recent news on X and web sources indicate growing backlash, with posts calling for legislative action amid stories of misuse. For instance, a Texas City undercover operation targeting child exploitation, while unrelated directly to Tangles, highlights the broader context of digital policing tools under review. Similarly, an Arizona bill shielding police cameras from scrutiny, as covered by Phoenix New Times, parallels Texas’ resistance to oversight.

As Texas leads in surveillance innovation, the implications ripple nationwide. Experts warn that without robust regulations, tools like Tangles could normalize warrantless tracking, eroding public trust. Sheriffs and DPS officials maintain that secrecy protects investigations, but the chorus for accountability grows louder, urging a reevaluation of how technology reshapes law enforcement in the Lone Star State.

The Road Ahead for Digital Oversight

Looking forward, Texas’ experience with Tangles may influence federal policy, especially as agencies like the IRS and BIA have dabbled in similar tech. The software’s role in Operation Lone Star exemplifies how state initiatives can amplify surveillance capabilities, often at the expense of individual rights. Civil liberties groups, bolstered by media exposés, are mobilizing for change, filing amicus briefs in related cases.

Public discourse on platforms like X continues to evolve, with users sharing stories of perceived overreach, such as the Uvalde school shooting trial’s tangential links to police tech failures. While not directly connected, these events underscore the need for reliable, transparent tools in high-stakes scenarios.

Ultimately, the debate over Tangles encapsulates a larger struggle: harnessing technology for public safety without sacrificing freedoms. As Texas navigates this terrain, the outcomes could redefine policing norms, prompting other states to follow suit or forge a more cautious path. With millions invested and rights at stake, the push for clarity remains paramount, ensuring that surveillance serves justice rather than shadows it.