After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

https://www.404media.co/after-town-bans-flock-councilmember-crashes-out-proposes-internet-and-phone-ban/

by cdrnsf • 2 months ago

120 84 2 months ago

arikrahman• 2 months ago

I was expecting the headline to be sensational but a crash out was exactly what happened. The bad faith non-sequiturs is the cherry on top.

tclancy2• 2 months ago

Yeah, it's even worse because the Johnathan Swift reference makes clear just how I Am Very Smart this dude is.

mghackerlady• 2 months ago

It would maybe be fine if it was just, like, one modest proposal instead of three of them

ofjcihen2• 2 months ago

[flagged]

davidu2• 2 months ago

This has not happened with Flock, nor have they ever been credibly accused of this. And what a weak conspiracy style post to insinuate it has.

kotaKat• 2 months ago

lol ok https://www.flocksafety.com/refer

dogleash2• 2 months ago

nor have they ever been accused of this

Sure they have. Just look at the accusation in the comment you're replying to.

downrightmike• 2 months ago

Doubt, we just haven't figured out the shells

blurri• 2 months ago

Because proposing legislation to ban all technology after your vote to keep Flock was not in the majority is a totally normal response?

dawnerd3• 2 months ago

The other day I half-jokingly said I was going to build a site to expose local council members for taking kickbacks and someone said "that isn't happening"

It's literally happening and this story makes it really clear. I wish it was this easy to spot. It's usually Flock donating to some charity a council person is also a board member on

gruez4• 2 months ago

It's literally happening and this story makes it really clear

A council member "crashing out" (ie. proposing some satirical bills) is "really clear" evidence of kickbacks? Seems like a stretch. At the very least I'd want evidence of some transaction having occurred, rather than "wow you strongly support something I can't possibly imagine anyone would support? You must be getting kickbacks!"

tptacek6• 2 months ago

No, the municipal policy ALPR debate generally does boil down to people who have a principles opposition to technology specialized for surveillance, and other people who believe it's no different from the cell towers that already track you.

Nobody's bribing a councilmember in an 800-person rural township.

bob0013• 2 months ago

Nobody's bribing a councilmember in an 800-person rural township.

I suspect this happens a lot more often than people assume. It does not take much to bribe people to change their minds based on the publicly known international spy/espionage cases. People will sell out their country for like $5k.

ofjcihen2• 2 months ago

Come on, a quick google search shows plenty of small town council members being charged with accepting bribes.

Days ago:

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/tarrant-county/north...

Multiple being charged at the same time:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/texas-mayor-ricardo-lopez-corru...

Hell, I remember my town of a few hundred at the time having a council member bribery case.

Is this definitive proof? Nah. But a smaller town doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. If anything it means it just costs less.

fred_is_fred• 2 months ago

Does Texas have open records law for politicians? He's taking this personally, which means he has a personal stake in the outcome.

zikduruqe• 2 months ago

Probably. https://deflock.org/foia

dogleash2• 2 months ago

Doesn't he know you have to be tech-coded to have unhinged takes on the necessity and inevitability of ubiquitous intrusive surveillance and be taken seriously?

wagwang• 2 months ago

:) he's not wrong, it is all surveillance

VoidWhisperer• 2 months ago

Since these town council members are elected, I hope this guy has no aspirations of getting elected again, because he basically just showed everyone in his town that he can't be reasonable - that it is either none (no electronics at all) or all (privacy invading stuff like Flock)

OkayPhysicist• 2 months ago

It's Texas. Being reasonable is not a prerequisite for winning elections. If anything, it's a handicap.

kube-system• 2 months ago

Sounds like it is the ripe time for others to respond earnestly with a GDPR-like proposal for all internet and phone providers :)

curiouser2• 2 months ago

https://archive.is/WGZoe

0xbadcafebee2• 2 months ago

Do they not get that surveillance doesn't actually make anything safe? It makes it so you can prosecute after the crime has already been committed. It's not like thieves will go "I was going to rob this 7-11, but damn, they have security cameras inside!" The cameras are there to intimidate. Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time.

kspacewalk22• 2 months ago

The argument about surveillance isn't whether it helps catch criminals (which obviously prevents some further crime), it obviously does. And yes, security cameras make places harder targets for thieves and robbers and criminals are intimidated by prison time. This seems almost axiomatically so to me, not sure what your argument against this could conceivably be.

The argument about surveillance is whether the negative trade-off (lack of privacy) is worth it.

ianm2184• 2 months ago

I responded to OP but he correct that criminals are not overly concerned by amount of prison time but the act of being apprehended itself https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398. Flock is still awful though

ianm2184• 2 months ago

To steelman the other side of this - you are basically wrong. One of the strongest deterrants for crime is how likely people think they are to be apprehended. If people were basically certain they would be caught their propensity for crime is low. [1]. Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time you are right but they are intimidated by getting apprehended.

Now I hate the idea of Flock and think we should basically fully ban facial recognition technology, license plate readers, and similar topics. It is just too dangerous if the wrong people get in power. But we should make sure we are making real, fact based arguments.

[1]. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/670398

trollbridge• 2 months ago

More cameras doesn’t necessarily mean more apprehensions and convictions though.

johnnyanmac4• 2 months ago

One of the strongest deterrants for crime is how likely people think they are to be apprehended.

The strongest deterrent for the general populace.

Generally speaking, crime rates tend to be pretty low already. So the sample shifts from general populace to those who already commit crimes, or in such an emotional fervor that they gain the capacity for crime.

Among that population, I don't think surveillance cameras are stopping much.

mckn1ght• 2 months ago

Criminals aren't intimidated by prison time.

I’m sure this is true for a subset but is not universal. I imagine just as big a subset or even the majority of criminals simply think they are smart enough to get away with the crime.

Assume a perfect world where this system resulted in swift capture and high conversion on charges to convictions to the point where it becomes a pop culture fact that petty crime wouldn’t pay anymore. Does the next generation of criminals still believe they won’t get away with it? Or does the criminal population shrink?

Of course people don’t just stop being poor simply because crime is more effectively rooted out, but maybe their efforts would be redirected towards the power structures that allow poverty to continue vs each other, like would be the case if you rob a 7-11 franchise.

pandaman• 2 months ago

It works to the point that people used to put up fake cameras when the real surveillance was expensive (CCTV cameras with multichannel VCR type of setup). Also, I am not sure you are aware, but criminals are very constrained during prison time and are limited to committing crimes against other criminals in the prison, leaving citizens alone.

beepbooptheory• 2 months ago

Just wanna say I am happy 404media is, presumably, not banned here anymore!

Bender3• 2 months ago

Does not appear to be any more. [1] If I remember correctly dang said that at one point the site required membership to view articles.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=404media.co

382hi• 2 months ago

archived: https://nonogra.ph/after-town-bans-flock-councilmember-crash...

jayd16• 2 months ago

How useful could it be if the poles are vandalized regularly?

rolph• 2 months ago

yea, verily, quite usefull as demonstration of enticement to crimes against property, at the behest of such devices.

intrikate• 2 months ago

"...Flowers said, "I believe personally that guilty people act defensively. If you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't be a problem."

Oh boy, back to this crap again. If that's true, for you to be acting this defensively sure is sending some signal.

deepsquirrelnet• 2 months ago

Baked into that is a presumption of justice, which is becoming comically out of touch to the point where that overused phrase could be a meme.

summermusic• 2 months ago

"I don't need privacy because my actions are questionable, I need privacy because your judgement and intentions are."

LocalH2• 2 months ago

Check his business connections

psadauskas• 2 months ago

Someone should go point a webcam at his house. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem with it.

salawat• 2 months ago

Narcissist's first strike: insist that the people preventing them from getting what they want are the problem, and setting the frame. All you can do is refuse to engage them in the frame, and deny them the luxury of shaping the engagement, which tends to fluster them even more.

Hopefully whoever elected this person will have second thoughts and boot them. It's quite clear they are more interested in aggregating power and creating edifi through which to abuse the public than representing them in good faith.

Bjartr• 2 months ago

The link under "would be introducing measures"[1] has the full statement from the councilmember where he describes the proposals he will be bringing:

A Modest Proposal for Digital Device Prohibition: A total ban on all cellular and GPS-capable devices for all operations within city limits.
A Modest Proposal for Total Surveillance Abolition (Residential & Commercial): A total ban on all outward-facing cameras
A Modest Proposal for Total Municipal and Commercial Decommissioning: A total termination of all internet services and electronic record-keeping

For those that didn't catch the reference, he's alluding to the 1729 publication by Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver's Travels

A Modest Proposal For preventing the children of poor people in Ireland, from being a burden on their parents or country, and for making them beneficial to the publick.

Which was a satirical work suggesting that the Irish poor's financial woes could be addressed by eating children, thus feeding people while reducing resource demand.

[1] https://www.banderabulletin.com/article/3093,council-votes-t...

jagged-chisel• 2 months ago

Those first two are great if adopted by and for their local government office.

Third one makes no sense.

bathtub365• 2 months ago

Openly admitting he’ll be wasting taxpayer time and money on frivolous proposals because he didn’t get his way through the democratic process. Thankfully the democratic process can go against him even further and remove him from office at their next opportunity and he can find somewhere else to throw a tantrum.

tptacek6• 2 months ago

I don't see how you can be at all engaged with local politics and not be familiar with performative (and even temper-tantrumy) proposed resolutions and ordinances.

That the resolutions are literally titled "modest proposals" makes this article so much cringier.

pocksuppet• 2 months ago

I've lived in places with really strict regulations on surveillance cameras and it's actually pretty cool to know humans have to individually look at camera footage (no mass slurping), police can only access it with regards to an actual crime report submitted by an identifiable person, and it's deleted after 3 days unless that happens.

When I dropped my wallet the security guard still had no issue checking the camera footage.

1vuio0pswjnm72• 2 months ago

Flowers would make a great HN commenter

Classic "all-or-nothing", "black and white" argument style

It's either one extreme or another

If the town wants to ban Flock cameras then surely it also wants to ban all outward-facing cameras, GPS-capable devices, cellular network devices, internet service and electronic record-keeping

There is no option to go back to a few years ago before Flock cameras were installed. Nope, the town must go back to "1880, paper ledgers and cash only"

Totally absurd

1vuio0pswjnm72• 2 months ago

Was 2

casey2• 2 months ago

It's very odd that many town council in the US view their citizens as resources to exploit rather than fellow town members and friends. They should not have such a single minded focus on growth metrics. Leave corporate work to the corporations leave social work to the governments.

That's how China does things, e.g. 12345

After Town Bans Flock, Councilmember Crashes Out, Proposes Internet, Phone Ban

Related Stories