Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Technology Caught the Austin Serial Bomber (foxnews.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the bomber-busted dept.

Wednesday police in Austin, Texas finally located the "serial bomber" believed to be responsible for six package bombs which killed two people over the last three weeks. "The operation was aided by different uses of technology, including surveillance cameras and cell phone triangulation." An anonymous reader shares this article: The suspect, who has been identified as 24-year-old Mark Anthony Conditt, was killed near the motel he was traced to thanks to surveillance footage from a Federal Express drop-off store, The Austin American-Stateman reported. The authorities were able to gather information after police noticed the subject shipped an explosive device from a Sunset Valley FedEx store, a suburb approximately 25 minutes away from Austin. The evidence included the security footage from the store, as well as store receipts obtained showing suspicious transactions. The authorities were also able to look at the individual's Google search history, the Statesman noted, which gave them further insight into his dealings...

The authorities were also able to use cell phone triangulation technology, which provides a cell phone's location data via information collected from nearby cell towers... The phone's GPS capabilities can track the phone within 5 to 10 feet and can also provide "historical" or "prospective" location information. It can also "ping" the phone, forcing it to reveal its exact location... As cell phone companies store this type of data, law enforcement authorities must request it via the appropriate court processes.
"Authorities in Austin were able to use this technology to trace the suspect to a hotel in Williamson County."

62 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Technology didn't catch him, douchebags! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    People caught him using technology, moron editors!

  2. He was a terrorist by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nice to see the main stream still won't call a white guy a terrorist.

    1. Re: He was a terrorist by Daemonik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you've proved my point rather succinctly actually.

    2. Re: He was a terrorist by DalM · · Score: 2

      Yes, he was politically motivated. The Dallas Morning News did an excellent report on the guy. There is no doubt he was a right with political extremist.

    3. Re: He was a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      His point is Americans are a bunch of racists, which is pretty much the case.

      If this guy practiced Islam, he'd be called a terrorist regardless of whether he's an "individual element" or not.

      Americans have a small terrorism problem, but it's highly related to their big racism problem.

    4. Re: He was a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the bomber identified as a Conservative, albeit a reaaaally dumb and confused one.. So yeah, it's likely safe to say he's a Trump supporter also. He's a right wing extremist in either case.

      Of course I'd say there are probably more specific sub-designations of right-wing extremist - sheltered internet reichtard, daddy-raised nazi, too inbred to think, etc.

    5. Re:He was a terrorist by pots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I realize that "terrorist" is the new trendy label, but while hate crimes are often related to terrorism they are not the same thing. This despite the fact that hate crimes are often intended to generate terror.

    6. Re:He was a terrorist by Known+Nutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I realize that "terrorist" is the new trendy label, but while hate crimes are often related to terrorism they are not the same thing. This despite the fact that hate crimes are often intended to generate terror.

      In it's simplest form, "terrorist" can be defined as "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

      While we may not have seen the video associated with this case and we do not fully understand this individual's motivations, it is not unreasonable to theorize that those motivations were political on some level, and therefore not unreasonable to refer to this jackass as a domestic terrorist (or simply terrorist) until such time as evidence of his true motives is presented.

      --
      Beware of the Leopard.
    7. Re: He was a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Americans are racist, but so is everyone else. However, America is forced to be a melting pot whereas many other countries get to largely be one religion/race.

    8. Re:He was a terrorist by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Terrorism has some sort of political goal - you are trying to get other people to change their behavior. Hence the name, you're trying to elicit terror in your target group, as a motivator to get them to change behavior.

      Based on early reports, this guy seems to be a straight out psychopath. His motive seems to be nothing more than doing it for thrills. Timothy Mcveigh was a white terrorist. I'm not convinced that this guy is. Anarchist is probably a better match.

    9. Re:He was a terrorist by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      If a guy kills people by planting bombs for no reason other than he's just out for kicks, is he a terrorist? Usually when we say terrorist we mean someone who is trying to strike fear into society with an agenda in mind, usually political. I don't know what this guy's politics is but it seems he may just have been crazy. Or maybe he did have something driving him but if so I haven't heard of anything official. Still, a killer is a killer. I don't care why he's killing, he needed to be stopped. Call him anything you please as long as he's dead.

    10. Re:He was a terrorist by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Oh so all Alt Righters are terrorists now?

      About as much as all muslims are terrorists.

    11. Re: He was a terrorist by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      Maybe he just liked blowing people up.

    12. Re: He was a terrorist by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      There's only one sane solution!

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    13. Re: He was a terrorist by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Precisely. He shall henceforth be referred to as The Mad Bomber (he wears a cape, of course).

    14. Re: He was a terrorist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh shiiiiiiiiiit.

    15. Re: He was a terrorist by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      Australia had the best solution. Build al natiomal mythology about being a nation of immigrants. Wait until racism was out of fashion. THEN stir the melting pot.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    16. Re: He was a terrorist by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Systematic coercion is also known as an ideology.

      Try again.

    17. Re:He was a terrorist by dwpro · · Score: 1

      Sure, if the you want to skip the whole legal definition of terrorism, we can call him that. However, since we truly throw the book at terrorists, it's important to try and maintain a definition that doesn't cause an overly broad use of those specific state powers. Call that racism if you want.

      --
      Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
    18. Re: He was a terrorist by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      You have some special kind of disability that makes you skip over 8 words in each sentence you read?

    19. Re:He was a terrorist by careysub · · Score: 2

      Ironically you attempt to disprove that the MSM is parroting far-right talking points by quoting a shallow MSM talking head (who leans right) parroting a far-right talking point for support.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    20. Re: He was a terrorist by LinuxLuver · · Score: 1

      You missed it by a mile. The point was a consistent bias they sees white folk doing terrorist acts not being called terrorists. I agree that in this case the authorities have said this kids was needed up personally and had no ideological agenda. In recent history, they makes him an exception of sorts. The point stands: authorities and media tend not to use the word "terrorist" when taking about ideologically motivated killings by white people.

      --
      Only boring people are ever bored.
    21. Re: He was a terrorist by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Not every sentence. Just ones with extra unimportant words.

    22. Re: He was a terrorist by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Ah I see, so you are a politician. Good to know.

    23. Re:He was a terrorist by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I realize that "terrorist" is the new trendy label, but while hate crimes are often related to terrorism they are not the same thing. This despite the fact that hate crimes are often intended to generate terror.

      In it's simplest form, "terrorist" can be defined as "a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."

      While we may not have seen the video associated with this case and we do not fully understand this individual's motivations, it is not unreasonable to theorize that those motivations were political on some level, and therefore not unreasonable to refer to this jackass as a domestic terrorist (or simply terrorist) until such time as evidence of his true motives is presented.

      Then why does the media not apply the same definition to anyone who is brown or black and does something illegal?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    24. Re: He was a terrorist by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      While they might be the important words, they are from two completely different contexts and thus does not imply a "systematic coercion" just because those two words happen to be in the same sentence.

    25. Re:He was a terrorist by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      Terrorism requires ideological or political motivation. So far, there doesn't seem to be evidence for that.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    26. Re: He was a terrorist by kourtneybutts00 · · Score: 1

      Contact ; E N R I Q U E H A C K D E M O N 11 @ G M A I L d o t C O M or text him on WhatsApp via+1 6 2 8 2 0 3 7 0 0 5 . If you suspect that he is cheating, he might actually be..I hired a local hacker who helped me hack his phone without touching his device that diverted all his messages( face book, WhatsApp, text messages, and even phone calls) to my phone; ENRIQUE LEWIS is the man for the job with a very high level of professionalism and highly reliable.You can also text/call him on WhatsApp via+1 6 2 8 2 0 3-7 0 0 5. I really enjoyed working with him and the few friends I told have been nothing but thankful to me for the referral.

  3. Rare Battery? by pipingguy · · Score: 2

    I thought they were able to identify a "rare" battery that he used in the device that malfunctioned and then were able to find out where in Austin batteries of that type were shipped.

  4. BS. FedEx told the police who mailed the package by DalM · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The guy mailed his package FedEx. The package blew up and FedEx was able to provide miles of paper trails of evidence for the police.

  5. Was he? by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Based on this targets (prominent members of the black community) you're right. I can't imagine he wasn't. It's just odd that there's no manifesto? The police have a 25 minute video of him though that they won't release until the investigation's done. So far I don't know of any hard evidence on his choice of targets. Though to be fair I think if we were Muslim the media would call this terrorism without that evidence. You're correct to point out that this sort of caution only exists for whites

    It does disturb me he was home schooled. School isn't just about learning, it's about socializing.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Was he? by PPH · · Score: 2, Funny

      The police have a 25 minute video of him though that they won't release until the investigation's done.

      They are trying to identify some organization he mentions having worked on behalf of. And find the identities of other members that might have been involved in a conspiracy. The detective work could take months or even years.

      Has anyone heard of a group calling itself the Lulz?

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Was he? by stabiesoft · · Score: 2

      Actually TMZ reported several odd things about him. All from while he attended community college from blogs.
      He was homophobic.
      He was very pro choice.
      He had an odd perspective on the sex offender registry. He was against it feeling like those who served their time in prison should not be further penalized.
      Additionally, he was home schooled as you mentioned and a pretty religious family.

    3. Re: Was he? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Home schooling has nothing to do with this. This might be the first documented case in relation with homeschooling in fact. A statistical anomaly.

      Personally, I wish more children were homeschooled provided their parents have both the time and drive to provide it. Itâ(TM)s a well documented fact that home school children on average do better academically. Actually, truth be told, any child will do better with parental involvement regardless of where they go to school.

      This teen was a loner. Nothing was going to change that all that much. Your bias against home schooling, being the communist that you are, are far from government indoctrination. Because you wonâ(TM)t be honest about it, those of us on Slashdot for about 20 years now will explain it for the rest of the reading audience.

    4. Re: Was he? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      Involved parenting is the essential, oft-missing component, of virtually every childhood education fail... parents able and willing to contribute positively to their child's rearing are clearly more likely to home school, and even place their offspring in private schools, to the detriment of public schools which suffer from a dearth of folks who rely on the school district for 7-8 hours of babysitting.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    5. Re:Was he? by parkinglot777 · · Score: 1

      He blew up two black people, two white people, and one Asian with four mail bombs and one trip-wire trap.

      If he was racially motivated, he had a very odd way of showing it - not targeting a specific race and all.

      You are misleading people. Only TWO people were killed. They both are black and were targeted (2 different bombs). The two white people were injured and were NOT targeted but rather by chance because it was left at a sign with trip-wire trap. The so called "Asian" in your post is NOT Asian but Hispanic. She was injured. Actually another person who is FedEx employee was injured and that was ALSO not targeted but the bomb discharged accidentally. The last kill is HIMSELF and yes this kill is WHITE. Along the process of the last kill, a SWAT team officer was blasted by the bomb.

      Stop spreading your BS that attempt to misleading others.

      Sources -- here and here.

  6. lame by supernova87a · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The "technology" that caught the bomber has been around for >30 years. Stores have been recording video and cops have been using it since your grandparents by this point.

    The Google search history on the guys computer was used after he was caught. By triangulation of his cell phone, I think the author kind of means, "the fact that most people now carry cell phones", which can be triangulated.

    Nothing about this is implausible to have happened 30 years ago with some moron using the pay phone system periodically instead. Makes me believe that the stupidity of criminals, and old fashioned police work based on our *current* laws are the solution to calls for increasingly invasive privacy monitoring and backdoors specially (ahem) for law enforcement.

    1. Re:lame by BlazeMiskulin · · Score: 5, Informative

      The "technology" that caught the bomber has been around for >30 years. Stores have been recording video and cops have been using it since your grandparents by this point.

      I know this may be a surprise to you, but we're not all Millennials. My grandparents died in 1967, 1982, 1986, and 1998. The last of those was in a nursing home for 10 years with severe Alzheimer's. 30 years ago, I was in university. The Berlin Wall was still standing, the Cold War was in full swing, the "World Wide Web" was several years from being born, "Car phones" were something only the rich could afford, and "cell phones" were a brick connected to a briefcase--something only affordable by the wealthy.

      "Google search history", "cell tower data", and "cell phone GPS data" (listed in TFS) most certainly did NOT exist 30 years ago.

      If you think 30 years ago is "your grandparent's time", you're obviously young. It might surprise you to know that "the government can track you everywhere you go" is something that your grandparents almost certainly considered "unAmerican"--if not outright "evil". That's what the Nazis and the Commies did, not America.

    2. Re:lame by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Informative

      It might surprise you to know that "the government can track you everywhere you go" is something that your grandparents almost certainly considered "unAmerican"--if not outright "evil". That's what the Nazis and the Commies did, not America.

      Yup. I was in college when Reagan was elected the first time. I remember one of the most popular memes* among my Reaganite friends was a joke about Soviet internal passports (which were really a thing).

      Fast-forward to the past decade - we have on more than one occasion had American bureaucrats propose the same thing for us, for the same reason the Soviets had been doing it way back in the day.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:lame by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      So what was the joke?!

      It was really only funny to people of a particular mindset. A Reaganite would ask a more liberal person (like myself) to "show your internal passport, comrade" with the implication that being liberal would inevitably lead to a complete loss of freedom such as was exhibited in the
      "liberal" Soviet Union.

      Of course, I wasn't above doing similar things. I remember one day (the presidential campaign was in full swing) we were in the college's dining hall, and there were a bunch of school kids visiting. I don't know if they were in uniforms or not, but many of them were dressed very similarly - so I started referring to them as "Reagan Youth" (a play on "Hitler Youth"). My conservative friends didn't think that was particularly funny.

      Ah, things seemed so black-and-white back in those days... nowadays I see a lot more gray - and not just in my beard.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
  7. There were plenty of red flags by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The bomber was white, Christian, home-schooled, anti-LGBT and conservative. This fits the profile of almost all domestic terrorists in the US. Why wasn't he on the FBI's radar?

    Where was he radicalized? Why hasn't the rest of the white, home-schooled, anti-LGBT, conservative community denounced him?

    I saw on TV that white folks in South Carolina were celebrating with each bombing. There's video. Why isn't the mainstream media talking about that?

    Don't stop fighting for the truth. The reckoning is coming

    #QAnon

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
    1. Re:There were plenty of red flags by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The bomber was white, Christian, home-schooled, anti-LGBT and conservative. This fits the profile of almost all domestic terrorists in the US. Why wasn't he on the FBI's radar?

      ....

      Any how do you know he's wasn't. The FBI follows lots of right wing nuts. But contrary to popular belief, the FBI can't surveil *everybody* (that, apparently, was the CIA's job). There have been dozens of cases that have come to light where people *known* to the FBI and other authorities have slipped under the radar (or cell phone tower) and committed crimes.

      The successful MO is coming clear - be white, be socially inept, have some technology background and have an axe to grind.

      Oh. Wait....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:There were plenty of red flags by guruevi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He wasn't a radicalized terrorist, he was a serial killer. There is a difference. He had no ideological causes, no politicla target, whether or not he was white, home schooled, Christian or anti-LGBT, it had nothing to do with it.

      What he did was because he was intelligent, psychopathic and his skills were most likely undervalued by his family and/or community. He probably had recently gone through some psychological trauma (girlfriend breaking up, fight with his dad, fired from his job) culminating into the thoughts that he was going to "show the world" with the hubris that he could get away with the cat-and-mouse game with agents he perceives to be less intelligent. He started low-end with someone disposable like a transient or a prostitute and worked his way up, probably to the perceived "target" but primarily to show that he can get away with it.

      Especially towards the end, they virtually all end up in a killing spree where they either commit suicide or get caught (and then commit suicide). Some choose guns, some choose hands, some knives, there are a number of currently active serial killers, they are not terrorists, they aren't profiled as terrorists, they typically work alone instead of in a cell although rarely a team of 2 will happen.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    3. Re:There were plenty of red flags by cyn1c77 · · Score: 1

      The bomber was white, Christian, home-schooled, anti-LGBT and conservative. This fits the profile of almost all domestic terrorists in the US. Why wasn't he on the FBI's radar?

      Because that profile is quote close to those currently leading our nation?

      Wait, was that a rhetorical question?

    4. Re:There were plenty of red flags by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm. Wow. Narcissistic perhaps? Obviously blind to reality...

      • white - 62%
      • Christian - kind of a nebulous term - anywhere from under 20% active to 75% claimed when asked
      • home-schooled (3.8%) and non-hispanic white (68% of that 3.8%) - 2.6%
      • in 2017 surveys indicated opposition to same-sex marriage had dropped to 32%. Certainly less than that are actually anti-LGBT.
      • Roughly 35% identify as conservative and over 85% of those are white - so call it 30% white conservative

      So at the most the intersection of all is 2.6%. I'm sure it is less because I've known many whites to be home schooled because they are LGBT or some other often-bullied sect.

      In any case, the only statistics listed that are even a majority are white and Christian and if you narrow Christian down to those that are very vocal or active they aren't a majority either. In no way does the list come close to "just about every American in the US".

    5. Re:There were plenty of red flags by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      He wasn't a radicalized terrorist, he was a serial killer.

      They are not mutually exclusive, as the Austin bomber shows. Anyway, serial killers seldom commit suicide, as Mark Anthony Conditt did. However, radicalized terrorists very often commit suicide.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    6. Re:There were plenty of red flags by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yes, they aren't mutually exclusive, there are probably some Al Qaeda psychopaths doing their serial murdering, however there appears to be no political motive for the Austin bomber, hence he is not a terrorist.

      Terrorist: a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
      Serial killer: a person who commits a series of murders, often with no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behavior pattern.

      To conflate the two for political motives (as you originally did) is a highly dangerous enterprise.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    7. Re:There were plenty of red flags by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "pursuit of political aims."
      Thats why police and the FBI have to be very aware of who they are looking for.
      A person of faith can be fully supported by the texts of their faith and could have the full support of a large faith community in the USA.
      A community that would fund, support and hide a person.
      That could offer a person a no go area for people of the faith to hide in.
      Where any attempts at CCTV is removed by criminals of the same faith.
      To provide a new real identity for any person of faith on the move trying to evade police. To even have supporters of the same faith within law enforcement.
      To have to consider cleared people of faith in state and federal law enforcement having split loyalties and who will always put their faith first.
      A faith group can split the needed design and buying patterns up between different people all over the USA over a longer time.
      No one face, use of transport, cash payment to link back from months and years of CCTV.
      No changes to spending patterns and no way to find moments as support is done by random people of faith.
      The teaching of the faith can not be altered and any act would be seen as following the teaching of the faith.
      Everyone in the faith would support the person and the faith would have texts about not supporting law enforcement.
      That requires a lot more effort on the part of the FBI to keep methods for investigation an entire faith more secret.

      Re "no apparent motive and typically following a characteristic, predictable behavior pattern."
      Than a person with no support network who has to stay secret about all their actions.
      Who cannot risk CCTV. Every needed task then has the same person in front of CCTV. Investigate every face, movement of people at a set time in an area and movement patterns start to show on CCTV. The numbers of people who get tracked again and again after each event start to get smaller due to time and location.
      Shift work, the need for sleep, shopping, hobbies, sport, family, friends start to remove the very large numbers of people as the investigation into every face and method of transport goes on.
      The US can be given more details and asked for help.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    8. Re:There were plenty of red flags by swillden · · Score: 2

      The bomber was white, Christian, home-schooled, anti-LGBT and conservative. This fits the profile of almost all domestic terrorists in the US.

      That profile also fits millions of non-terrorists. With a sufficiently loose definition of anti-LGBT, it fits a large minority of people where I live. If you remove "home-schooled" as well (and with the aforementioned loose definition) it fits almost everyone.

      Your statement is akin to saying that the FBI should be watching all Arab Muslims who go to Mosque daily.

      Profiling is questionable in any case, but it's just stupid when the 99.999% of the people who fit the profile aren't a problem.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:There were plenty of red flags by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      That profile also fits millions of non-terrorists.

      Gosh, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying that it sucks to be classified as some sort of danger to society just because of your race and/or religion?

      Your statement is akin to saying that the FBI should be watching all Arab Muslims who go to Mosque daily.

      No shit, Sherlock. That was the point. We have a lot of jackoffs in this country who say exactly that. A bunch of them work in the White House and one is golfing in Florida today on the taxpayers' dime. We see them in this comments section all the time.

      It feels different when it's topsy-turvey, with you turvey instead of topsy, doesn't it?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    10. Re:There were plenty of red flags by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      Incorrect. The more thoughtfully crafted bombs he sent all specifically targeted the homes of sociopolitically prominent people of color, and the rest that came later were of much lesser construction. I call diversion.

      Moreover, the attitudes of the misogynistic and racist church and community is well known to us in Austin.

      Now whatever you decide, please consider doing something for this kid who watched her father die right in front of her. https://www.gofundme.com/tx-bo...

  8. Re:Idiot by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    I saw the security footage... He walked up to the fedex counter wearing gloves and a wig. What did he honestly think was going to happen?

    The counter guy thought he was going to a party? It is Austin, you know.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  9. its true! by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 3, Funny

    what is the first thing they always do in movies about heists and other crazy illegal doings? the newbie always pulls a phone out then jason statham grabs it and and chucks it out the window.

  10. Yes, he was a criminal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They called him "Mark Anthony" and not just "Mark." We've known at least since the time of Lee Harvey Oswald that dangerous people have three names.

  11. Re:A welcome change by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    At least this time, the suspect wasn't killed while resisting arrest. We may never know his motives or if the victims were targeted or random and if the bombings stop, we may never really know for sure if he was guilty, but nobody will be able to claim that the cops killed an innocent man.

    What? From TFA:

    The suspected serial bomber who killed two people and terrorized Austin, Texas for three harrowing weeks was killed in a dramatic confrontation with police overnight Wednesday, authorities said.

    The suspect wasn't killed while resisting arrest? Nobody will be able to claim the cops killed an innocent man? Where are you getting this?

  12. Re:A welcome change by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

    The suspect wasn't killed while resisting arrest?

    The suspect was killed when a bomb he was carrying exploded. TFA doesn't say that the police were responsible for the explosion. It may have been triggered by the suspect and it may have gone off unintentionally, but I see nothing in TFA that implies that the police were responsible. Generally speaking, the expression, "killed while resisting arrest" implies that the suspect was killed, either directly or indirectly by the police. Unless you have evidence showing that the police were responsible for the explosion, my statement stands.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  13. Thank You For the Good Use of Technology by mallyn · · Score: 2

    My thanks to those who used technology for a very good purpose! To bring such a person to justice is a good use of technology!!!

    --
    Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
  14. But they claim they are going dark! by sl149q · · Score: 1

    It is lucky for us it was the local police that caught him. The FBI is convinced that they are going dark because of encryption so would have just put out a press release calling for backdoors in cell phones and web etc.

    It is reasonably obvious that despite encryption which is shutting some traditional doors that the cops were used to looking through, that there is a plethora of new data that can be used instead.

  15. Re:Triangulation and pinging? by mnemotronic · · Score: 1
    I can understand how they could triangulate on a known device to determine it's location. Google can do that. But can it go the other way? Like, use the Fedex surveillance videos to determine when the suspect arrived and left that location, then query for any phone that followed that pattern. Doing this a couple times and you've got his IMEI or other identifying signature. But what about the "ping" mentioned and what is the "it" that "pings" the phone and how does that reveal the "exact location"? Does it turn on GPS (if it's off?)

    The phone's GPS capabilities can track the phone within 5 to 10 feet and can also provide "historical" or "prospective" location information. It can also "ping" the phone, forcing it to reveal its exact location.

    On an unrelated note; the police should have suspected that the suspect might not want to be taken alive, and that a bomb maker might have some means handy to ensure that. They should have apprehended him in an unfamiliar and isolated context, like when he was trying to take a piss. The bomb in his vehicle could have just as easily been something much more powerful.

    Armchair quarterbackin is easy though, ain't it?

    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  16. Triangulation by uldics · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cell towers are not triangulating. They can do it, but to a very limited approximation only where directional antennas have narrow coverage. And narrow is 30 degrees, that can not give a practically usable location, unless you plan to napalm him. What they use instead is trilateration, by comparing the signal strength at nearby towers. That can give meters of location precision.

  17. Re:Wrong by guruevi · · Score: 1

    Your opinion doesn't matter when there are textbooks and dictionaries.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  18. how to hack by kourtneybutts00 · · Score: 1

    This man assisted me in hacking my CHEATING HUSBAND Facebook account and he is a very good hacker for services like :what's app, call logs, test messages etc. He delivers in 2hrs or less you can email him on E N R I Q U E H A C K D E M O N 11 ( a t ) G M A I L d o t C O M or WhatsApp: + 1 ( 6 2 8 ) 2 0 3 - 7 0 0 5 .