AUSTIN AFTERMATH – AT 11:38 A.M. ET:  We're now getting insight into the police work behind the termination of the Austin bomber.  Hats are off to the fine detection, and use of technology.  From Fox: 

The 23-year-old man linked to the deadly bombings that rocked Austin, Texas, and surrounding areas over the past month had a "target list" of future locations he wanted to strike, the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security said Thursday.

Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said that authorities have discovered that Mark Anthony Conditt, 23, had a "target list of future targets" including residences and addresses discovered by authorities.

"I think he had pulled these addresses, these were his future targets. It was a target list." he said on "America's Newsroom."

McCaul added that based on the data authorities were able to retrieve from Conditt, they were able to go the homes and "clear them" from any suspicious packages.

"We were also able to use technology to find a digital footprint of where his cellphone had been, so that the key evidence was getting his cellphone number so that when he turned his cellphone on immediately the SWAT teams descended on him at about 3 o’clock in the morning so we got close to him before he blew himself up," he said.

McCaul told Fox News that authorities are now looking at those addresses that Conditt pulled to try to find a link between them.

"That is what we are looking at right now. What is the common denominator between all these victims, or is it just completely random?" he said.

McCaul said law enforcement conducted a search of the home in Pflugerville, located northeast of Austin on Wednesday and have "a lot of computer data, hard drives."

"Those things will be very telling along with social media about what was motivating him to do this, and also was there any connectivity between all these victims or was it just a completely random event," he told Fox News.

COMMENT:  It was video surveillance at a FedEx location that proved decisive.  I know that there are some, and they are sincere, who worry about the privacy aspects of tools like video surveillance.  I don't share those worries.  Traditionally, there's been no right of privacy in public places.  We've always been patrolled by officers in police cars or foot patrolmen.  They have authority to peek into places if there's probable cause for concern.

The new technology has extended the capacity of the authorities to do better searches.  Often, these require warrants.  Sometimes they do not.  I do share concerns about invasion of privacy on personal computers and computer accounts.  From what I've observed, police surveillance techniques are working well.

March 22,  2018