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.
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.
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.
It sounds like you're saying the parent shouldn't be critical of this practice because it is common, which obviously doesn't follow, but I could be interpreting your comment wrongly.
This article is deceptive. I'm not talking about the parent commenter; I'm talking about the 404 Media piece that pretends the Bandera city councilmember is seriously proposing to ban cell phones.
To be fair, the council member appears to be an idiot.
If not, he is leaning all the way into a false equivalence comparing a cell phone one has personal control over to a nationwide network of spy cams that no regular citizen controls.
He's using political rhetoric (ultra-common rhetoric among normies) that you disagree with. Neither category you propose fits for me, based on the limited information I have.
reductio ad absurdum is what I think you are referring to.
But again, that’s not what this is. Taking away all cell phones, which are a lot more useful than the camera function it shares with flock, is not an equivalent move.
The issue is people don’t want their town covered in cameras they don’t control and has been shown to be abused nationwide. How on earth is removing internet access to the populace even in the same ballpark?
This is a tantrum by someone who I suspect was set to gain financially by signing a contract with flock.
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.
Why is the revealed preference of "I don't want to have a contract with a specific notorious company" mapped to "I don't want Internet at all" here? Maybe he should have proposed banning Comcast or another notorious company.
Honestly, there are ways to advocate for better digital privacy without the need to entirely dismantle modern day life.. Arguments like this are counterproductive and are made in bad faith, suggesting that privacy is an all or nothing approach.
Comparing Flowers' total ban on all technology to "A Modest proposal" is incredibly troublesome. His argument seems to be designed to show that privacy is impossible and that government overreach is inevitable and reasonable. He's not challenging existing power structures in any way, but aims to legitimize it. "Crash out" might not be the best term, but I think it helps to emphasize how unreasonable his position is in this matter.
FWIW I agree he’s not taking a good approach, it does sound like he’s flipping the bird on the way out due to frustration with not getting his way.
I also agree that government overreach should not be inevitable and is not reasonable. But I also agree that privacy is actually already much more eroded than the average citizen realizes. For that reason, I agree there are actually better places to put ones effort than banning LPRs. For instance, tech companies like those I mentioned should face stricter regulations than they do today. Now, Flock would be party to that itself as it is collecting highly sensitive data. But operating in a regulated environment is not the same as being prohibited from operating at all.
Generally speaking, I think machines that cause death and destruction and provide easy escape from crime scenes should be monitored while operating in public domains, where externalities of bad behavior can be foisted upon innocent parties. For the same reason, I also think speed and red light cameras should be a thing. Yes yes, then municipalities will shorten yellow light durations… this is an example of a pathological edge case than can be remedied, and doesn’t warrant throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMO. We should also consider that the privacy concerns being raised against LPRs are also edge cases. Can’t we have the benefits of LPRs as well as systems that prevent and punish abuses of such technology?
> I think machines that cause death and destruction and provide easy escape from crime scenes should be monitored while operating in public domains
This ignores the other issues that come with these systems. People concerned with Flock cameras are largely not complaining about catching criminals.
> We should also consider that the privacy concerns being raised against LPRs are also edge cases. Can’t we have the benefits of LPRs as well as systems that prevent and punish abuses of such technology?
These aren’t really edge cases. Abuses of surveillance systems seem ubiquitous and rarely are punished.
The US is a nation where a man was put in jail for over a month for posting an anti Trump meme and it seems literally nothing will happen to the people who did this to him. We seem categorically unable to punish abuse of power for some reason.
That’s not a revealed preference, but a stated one. My guess is that the councilman perceives the revealed preference to be: “I’m willing to give up privacy for convenience” and this is a way to get people to examine why they want certain conveniences at the cost of privacy, like doordash, netflix, facebook marketplace or group messages, vs others where they say they don’t, like convenience of law enforcement to track down criminals.
I think that any headline informing you of the goings-on in the city council of Bandera, Texas (population 829) is necessarily sensational. If you don't live in the area, there's no possible value to this content other than confirming preconceived biases.
Having the reporting from the local paper amplified outside the immediate community strengthens the signal, and supports the general norm of holding officials accountable.
"No man is an island entire of itself; every man
is a piece of the continent, a part of the main"
Strengthens what signal? The local coverage does not say anything about "crashing out". It states that the council has voted to terminate the contract after an initial approval, in response to public opposition, and publishes a dissenting statement from one of the councilmembers in full.
The author could have amplified that non-sensational article and tied it in with the Youtube clips and other non-sensational articles he found; there's good journalism lurking in here. But instead he wanted to be sensational.
You imply that the population number is the reason we shouldn't care, but then you say explicitly that it's the fact that we don't live there. Both seem nonsensical without further elaboration?
It's easy to understand why false news can distort your understanding of the world. If a journalist convinces you that X happened when actually it did not happen, you'll have a wrong belief which makes it harder to understand what's going on. What's more challenging to understand is the phenomenon called "sensationalism", where accurate news distorts your understanding of the world.
Crime coverage is usually the easiest starting point. You can, and some people do, continually scan the country for crimes. Then when such a crime happens, you publish an emotive article declaring that it happened. Crime is of course bad, so each of these articles will make sense on its own terms; poor innocent victims who've been hurt or killed by evil men deserve sympathy! But if you only ever publish content on crime from within that framing, your readers will inevitably start to conclude that it's the only framing, and crime policy should primarily be focused on protecting us innocent potential victims from the hordes of evil men who want to hurt us.
Hopefully that makes sense. If it does, then I'd encourage you to take that critical eye and turn it to the 404Media Flock coverage (https://www.404media.co/tag/flock/). When you scroll through, does it seem like they're carefully studying Flock to keep you informed on the policy landscape surrounding it? Or does it seem like they're searching for the most sensational Flock-related stories they can find?
That is a lot of words to not answer the question that was actually asked.
Why are you so insistent that no one should be interested in whether a town bans Flock cameras and how the proponents of those cameras react? Why are you so invested in convincing others they should not follow the news about this?
You’re trying to cast yourself in the role of educator here but I don’t think that’s what you’re doing here at all. How can you call it sensationalism when an article refers to a snubbed council member’s actions as a “crash out”, but you don’t call out the sensationalism of claiming that a county of 829 people with a very low crime rate needs to spend tens of thousands of dollars every year on surveillance cameras to keep them safe? Safe from what?
Anecdotes about whether people like Flock cameras are useful. Anecdotes about how one specific guy who likes Flock made an overheated analogy are not useful. The author conflating the two is a dictionary-perfect example of sensationalism.
> Anecdotes about how one specific guy who likes Flock made an overheated analogy are not useful.
You haven't been on social media the last decade, have yoh? We're no longer in times where (if we ever were) of the most eloquent, subtle, balanced argument winning over elected representatives.
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.
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.
Sadly true. Just because the people who stole your phone are caught on camera doesn't mean anyone gives a shit. It still takes policing and a DA bringing the case.
> 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.
I don't know what you are basing your opinions on here but the literature is pretty clear that their main concern is how likely they think they will be apprehended and cameras + technology + law enforcement clearly make that more likely.
I can't read the paper; did it say the criminals think they will be more likely apprehended by cameras and thus choose not to commit crime? Or did it say two separate things (criminals don't want to be apprehended, cameras lead to more apprehension) and linked them logically rather than with direct evidence?
Also, how can we know how much crime isn't happening due to cameras? If it's like "we installed a camera at location X and crimes there dropped 72%", that's not taking into account that the criminal just found an easier target, leaving the same amount of net crime.
It’s a literature study on crime deterrence and says the strongest deterrent is how likely criminals perceive apprehension.
I.e. they are much more likely to rob a grocery store if they think they won’t get caught, but the penalty for robbing a grocery store being 1 year or 10 years doesn’t have a strong effect on deterrence.
To your second point - I don’t think it is helpful to find hypothetical holes in their methodology, without reading the individual studies.
Cameras and technology don't put people in prison at all, law enforcement and prosecutors do. And, well, do they? Do we know if these cameras actually help? I don't think we do. I don't think anyone is studying this.
> I don't know what you are basing your opinions on here
The control group. Aka, the current crime rates right now with current infrastructure. Not a blank slate
In a lawless anarchy, you're probably right that "will I be held accountable for my actions?" Is the nost important question to ask. But we don't live in that society. The question we're asking instead is
1) how much does surveillance augment law enforcement?
2) how much does surveillance deter would be criminals compared to current deterrents that is law enforcement patrolling and reporting?
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.
Well, I'd say security cams and Flock affect the likelihood of apprehending a suspect, not so much the amount of prison time, so the argument still holds - you can't claim they won't have an effect.
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.
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.
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)
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"
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.
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?
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
>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!"
In a small town of 900 people, it seems odd a council member would be THAT upset about removing license plate reading camera systems, when it's clear the town doesn't want it. To get flustered enough to start proposing sarcastic bills, it's not a stretch to immediately think that there's at least some political maneuvering behind it, if not blatant kickbacks.
You never seen someone online or real life choose some trivial issue as a hill to die on? Moreover, what if the situation was reversed, and some politician crashes out over being anti-mass surveillance, even though most of the population supports it? Should we assume he's getting kickbacks from pedophiles and drug cartels?
In my opinion that should be enough to get some investigative journalists and private investigators poking around. Assuming investigative journalists are still a thing.
The problem is that this all hinges on what you think reasonable political positions are, and thanks to political polarization, everything on the other side is suspect. You support drilling for oil? You must be in the pocket of big oil! You support solar power? You must be in the pocket of chinese solar manufacturers. You support development? You must be in the pocket of luxury condo developers! You oppose development? You must be in the pocket of landlords!
The problem is that this all hinges on what you think reasonable political positions are
Well that's entirely up to the people. Anyone can be removed one way or another. This article is about a locality in Texas. Don't mess with Texans in a small town.
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.
> 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.
And besides, these days no ones giving straight cash to bribe, it's always via other means that are harder to trace and maybe not even directly monetary (sending them on a vacation, golfing, donations to charity...).
It's weird that people seem to act like lobbying doesn't exist at the city council level.
I love how through the course of 3 comments, it went from "straightforwardly illegal" to "morally shady", then to "exactly how governments should work". What's the alternative here? Should people not be allowed to cultivate relationships with their representatives? Is it ethically dubious for you to go with a company with a responsive sales team that's friendly and answers your questions, compared to their competitor that takes 2 weeks to responds and sneers at you?
Yes, I’d say it is ethically dubious, especially when it goes against what the citizens were asking for. Definitely a fine line and a bit of a gray area but still, lots of gov officials don’t get caught up in this and manage just fine. It’s the ones that are easily swayed shouldn’t be in any position of power. Also IMO lobbying should be illegal.
I'm not sure what you're responding to. I'm just saying that you don't need to bribe people. Obviously while bribery is illegal, calling someone and listening to their problems, assuring them you're on their side, and telling them they are very smart is not illegal.
First Law of Message Boards: bribery is fun to talk about, people just disagreeing about stuff and having little temper tantrums when they lose arguments is boring, ergo: bribery is everywhere.
I guess you never dealt with enterprise sales, lobbying or any of the hundred of ways we legally allow bribes. Or do you only consider it bribery if its illegal and otherwise it's all fine?
Just box office baseball tickets, just a $2k steak dinner with high end wine, just a phone call with the governor, just a gift card, just an advisor position with some equity, etc, etc, etc.
"Temper tantrum" is a satisfying way to describe the speech of people we hate. Yes, sometimes it's an appropriate description, but it's also a big red flag. I think using that phrase flippantly on a forum in fact contributes to the degradation of that forum.
> The First Law: Every forum is always in a state of constant decline.
> All forums start off good, enjoy a "honeymoon period" in which they continue to be good, and then steadily decline... from the point of view of each individual observer...
I think a lot about another comment from a while ago that donated 100 dollars or something to his city. That had his state govenor personally call him to thank him in a 5 minute call.
It's not a bribe, but if a govenor is placing his time @ 1200/hour for an individualized bow of gratitude, I can only imagine how cheap it is for a not good govenor to sell out for his own personal interests.
At the scale these tech trillionaires are working, why not throw a few pennies at some small councilman?
Those old enough will remember when Hare Krishnas proved that for a lot of people even a single cheap flower can trigger a feeling of reciprocity. It doesn't take much. The Airplane joke exists because the best way to avoid that is to not accept. Once you do...
You're right, I was speaking imprecisely. Giant national companies are not bribing 800-person Texas hamlets to get the revenue for 3-4 cameras (less the bribe).
It's really telling how davidu, a GP at a16z, investor in Flock, author of https://a16z.com/announcement/investing-in-flock-safety/ is losing his mind about his investment being called out on corruption, which adds even more credulity to the accusation.
I think it may be useful to send a message to other rookie politicians that there will be blow-back when they have a temper tantrum and threaten to disable the internet. The world if full of these people. Some only become temporary HOA officers but a handful make it past that filter.
Potential removal from office. Exclusion from all the things. Anything else their community has the wherewithal to implement. It's all up to them really. In a way he self reported to the people in a small Texas town. They know what's up. Now I have a song stuck in my head.
Dismissing the action of local politics is exactly how we fall to the wayside in larger elections. Most politicians start somewhere, and actions like this should be shamed early on.
Secondly, singular emotional appeals work a lot better on convincing a populace than broad statistics. Stories like this will likely be better to push if your goal is changing the mind of the common citizen. People relate more to people than numbers.
Me too (town of seven-hundred something). What are you implying in the context of the comment you're replying to? It sounds like everything they said is more or less valid regardless of your experience.
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...
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.
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.
It sounds like you're saying the parent shouldn't be critical of this practice because it is common, which obviously doesn't follow, but I could be interpreting your comment wrongly.
This article is deceptive. I'm not talking about the parent commenter; I'm talking about the 404 Media piece that pretends the Bandera city councilmember is seriously proposing to ban cell phones.
To be fair, the council member appears to be an idiot.
If not, he is leaning all the way into a false equivalence comparing a cell phone one has personal control over to a nationwide network of spy cams that no regular citizen controls.
So which is it? Idiot or bad faith actor?
He's using political rhetoric (ultra-common rhetoric among normies) that you disagree with. Neither category you propose fits for me, based on the limited information I have.
reductio ad absurdum is what I think you are referring to.
But again, that’s not what this is. Taking away all cell phones, which are a lot more useful than the camera function it shares with flock, is not an equivalent move.
The issue is people don’t want their town covered in cameras they don’t control and has been shown to be abused nationwide. How on earth is removing internet access to the populace even in the same ballpark?
This is a tantrum by someone who I suspect was set to gain financially by signing a contract with flock.
Those first two are great if adopted by and for their local government office.
Third one makes no sense.
"...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.
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.
Someone should go point a webcam at his house. I'm sure he wouldn't have a problem with it.
Check his business connections
"I don't need privacy because my actions are questionable, I need privacy because your judgement and intentions are."
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.
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.
Yeah, it's even worse because the Johnathan Swift reference makes clear just how I Am Very Smart this dude is.
It would maybe be fine if it was just, like, one modest proposal instead of three of them
Does feel immodest.
[flagged]
Why is the revealed preference of "I don't want to have a contract with a specific notorious company" mapped to "I don't want Internet at all" here? Maybe he should have proposed banning Comcast or another notorious company.
Honestly, there are ways to advocate for better digital privacy without the need to entirely dismantle modern day life.. Arguments like this are counterproductive and are made in bad faith, suggesting that privacy is an all or nothing approach.
Comparing Flowers' total ban on all technology to "A Modest proposal" is incredibly troublesome. His argument seems to be designed to show that privacy is impossible and that government overreach is inevitable and reasonable. He's not challenging existing power structures in any way, but aims to legitimize it. "Crash out" might not be the best term, but I think it helps to emphasize how unreasonable his position is in this matter.
FWIW I agree he’s not taking a good approach, it does sound like he’s flipping the bird on the way out due to frustration with not getting his way.
I also agree that government overreach should not be inevitable and is not reasonable. But I also agree that privacy is actually already much more eroded than the average citizen realizes. For that reason, I agree there are actually better places to put ones effort than banning LPRs. For instance, tech companies like those I mentioned should face stricter regulations than they do today. Now, Flock would be party to that itself as it is collecting highly sensitive data. But operating in a regulated environment is not the same as being prohibited from operating at all.
Generally speaking, I think machines that cause death and destruction and provide easy escape from crime scenes should be monitored while operating in public domains, where externalities of bad behavior can be foisted upon innocent parties. For the same reason, I also think speed and red light cameras should be a thing. Yes yes, then municipalities will shorten yellow light durations… this is an example of a pathological edge case than can be remedied, and doesn’t warrant throwing out the baby with the bathwater, IMO. We should also consider that the privacy concerns being raised against LPRs are also edge cases. Can’t we have the benefits of LPRs as well as systems that prevent and punish abuses of such technology?
> I think machines that cause death and destruction and provide easy escape from crime scenes should be monitored while operating in public domains
This ignores the other issues that come with these systems. People concerned with Flock cameras are largely not complaining about catching criminals.
> We should also consider that the privacy concerns being raised against LPRs are also edge cases. Can’t we have the benefits of LPRs as well as systems that prevent and punish abuses of such technology?
These aren’t really edge cases. Abuses of surveillance systems seem ubiquitous and rarely are punished.
The US is a nation where a man was put in jail for over a month for posting an anti Trump meme and it seems literally nothing will happen to the people who did this to him. We seem categorically unable to punish abuse of power for some reason.
That’s not a revealed preference, but a stated one. My guess is that the councilman perceives the revealed preference to be: “I’m willing to give up privacy for convenience” and this is a way to get people to examine why they want certain conveniences at the cost of privacy, like doordash, netflix, facebook marketplace or group messages, vs others where they say they don’t, like convenience of law enforcement to track down criminals.
The future is now old man.
I think that any headline informing you of the goings-on in the city council of Bandera, Texas (population 829) is necessarily sensational. If you don't live in the area, there's no possible value to this content other than confirming preconceived biases.
That's an odd way of viewing it.
Having the reporting from the local paper amplified outside the immediate community strengthens the signal, and supports the general norm of holding officials accountable.
"No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main"
Strengthens what signal? The local coverage does not say anything about "crashing out". It states that the council has voted to terminate the contract after an initial approval, in response to public opposition, and publishes a dissenting statement from one of the councilmembers in full.
The author could have amplified that non-sensational article and tied it in with the Youtube clips and other non-sensational articles he found; there's good journalism lurking in here. But instead he wanted to be sensational.
You imply that the population number is the reason we shouldn't care, but then you say explicitly that it's the fact that we don't live there. Both seem nonsensical without further elaboration?
It's easy to understand why false news can distort your understanding of the world. If a journalist convinces you that X happened when actually it did not happen, you'll have a wrong belief which makes it harder to understand what's going on. What's more challenging to understand is the phenomenon called "sensationalism", where accurate news distorts your understanding of the world.
Crime coverage is usually the easiest starting point. You can, and some people do, continually scan the country for crimes. Then when such a crime happens, you publish an emotive article declaring that it happened. Crime is of course bad, so each of these articles will make sense on its own terms; poor innocent victims who've been hurt or killed by evil men deserve sympathy! But if you only ever publish content on crime from within that framing, your readers will inevitably start to conclude that it's the only framing, and crime policy should primarily be focused on protecting us innocent potential victims from the hordes of evil men who want to hurt us.
Hopefully that makes sense. If it does, then I'd encourage you to take that critical eye and turn it to the 404Media Flock coverage (https://www.404media.co/tag/flock/). When you scroll through, does it seem like they're carefully studying Flock to keep you informed on the policy landscape surrounding it? Or does it seem like they're searching for the most sensational Flock-related stories they can find?
That is a lot of words to not answer the question that was actually asked.
Why are you so insistent that no one should be interested in whether a town bans Flock cameras and how the proponents of those cameras react? Why are you so invested in convincing others they should not follow the news about this?
You’re trying to cast yourself in the role of educator here but I don’t think that’s what you’re doing here at all. How can you call it sensationalism when an article refers to a snubbed council member’s actions as a “crash out”, but you don’t call out the sensationalism of claiming that a county of 829 people with a very low crime rate needs to spend tens of thousands of dollars every year on surveillance cameras to keep them safe? Safe from what?
anecdotes about whether people like Flock cameras where they live are kinda useful, I think? maybe it'll inspire other city council votes elsewhere
Anecdotes about whether people like Flock cameras are useful. Anecdotes about how one specific guy who likes Flock made an overheated analogy are not useful. The author conflating the two is a dictionary-perfect example of sensationalism.
> Anecdotes about how one specific guy who likes Flock made an overheated analogy are not useful.
You haven't been on social media the last decade, have yoh? We're no longer in times where (if we ever were) of the most eloquent, subtle, balanced argument winning over elected representatives.
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.
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
More cameras doesn’t necessarily mean more apprehensions and convictions though.
Sadly true. Just because the people who stole your phone are caught on camera doesn't mean anyone gives a shit. It still takes policing and a DA bringing the case.
> 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.
I don't know what you are basing your opinions on here but the literature is pretty clear that their main concern is how likely they think they will be apprehended and cameras + technology + law enforcement clearly make that more likely.
I can't read the paper; did it say the criminals think they will be more likely apprehended by cameras and thus choose not to commit crime? Or did it say two separate things (criminals don't want to be apprehended, cameras lead to more apprehension) and linked them logically rather than with direct evidence?
Also, how can we know how much crime isn't happening due to cameras? If it's like "we installed a camera at location X and crimes there dropped 72%", that's not taking into account that the criminal just found an easier target, leaving the same amount of net crime.
It’s a literature study on crime deterrence and says the strongest deterrent is how likely criminals perceive apprehension.
I.e. they are much more likely to rob a grocery store if they think they won’t get caught, but the penalty for robbing a grocery store being 1 year or 10 years doesn’t have a strong effect on deterrence.
To your second point - I don’t think it is helpful to find hypothetical holes in their methodology, without reading the individual studies.
Cameras and technology don't put people in prison at all, law enforcement and prosecutors do. And, well, do they? Do we know if these cameras actually help? I don't think we do. I don't think anyone is studying this.
> I don't know what you are basing your opinions on here
The control group. Aka, the current crime rates right now with current infrastructure. Not a blank slate
In a lawless anarchy, you're probably right that "will I be held accountable for my actions?" Is the nost important question to ask. But we don't live in that society. The question we're asking instead is
1) how much does surveillance augment law enforcement?
2) how much does surveillance deter would be criminals compared to current deterrents that is law enforcement patrolling and reporting?
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.
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
Well, I'd say security cams and Flock affect the likelihood of apprehending a suspect, not so much the amount of prison time, so the argument still holds - you can't claim they won't have an effect.
> 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.
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.
https://archive.is/WGZoe
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)
It's Texas. Being reasonable is not a prerequisite for winning elections. If anything, it's a handicap.
Just wanna say I am happy 404media is, presumably, not banned here anymore!
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
archived: https://nonogra.ph/after-town-bans-flock-councilmember-crash...
:) he's not wrong, it is all surveillance
How useful could it be if the poles are vandalized regularly?
yea, verily, quite usefull as demonstration of enticement to crimes against property, at the behest of such devices.
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
Sounds like it is the ripe time for others to respond earnestly with a GDPR-like proposal for all internet and phone providers :)
Does Texas have open records law for politicians? He's taking this personally, which means he has a personal stake in the outcome.
Probably. https://deflock.org/foia
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
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?
[flagged]
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
>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!"
In a small town of 900 people, it seems odd a council member would be THAT upset about removing license plate reading camera systems, when it's clear the town doesn't want it. To get flustered enough to start proposing sarcastic bills, it's not a stretch to immediately think that there's at least some political maneuvering behind it, if not blatant kickbacks.
You never seen someone online or real life choose some trivial issue as a hill to die on? Moreover, what if the situation was reversed, and some politician crashes out over being anti-mass surveillance, even though most of the population supports it? Should we assume he's getting kickbacks from pedophiles and drug cartels?
Pedophiles and drug cartels are not operating legally, while unfortunately Flock is
In my opinion that should be enough to get some investigative journalists and private investigators poking around. Assuming investigative journalists are still a thing.
The problem is that this all hinges on what you think reasonable political positions are, and thanks to political polarization, everything on the other side is suspect. You support drilling for oil? You must be in the pocket of big oil! You support solar power? You must be in the pocket of chinese solar manufacturers. You support development? You must be in the pocket of luxury condo developers! You oppose development? You must be in the pocket of landlords!
The problem is that this all hinges on what you think reasonable political positions are
Well that's entirely up to the people. Anyone can be removed one way or another. This article is about a locality in Texas. Don't mess with Texans in a small town.
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.
> 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.
And besides, these days no ones giving straight cash to bribe, it's always via other means that are harder to trace and maybe not even directly monetary (sending them on a vacation, golfing, donations to charity...).
It's weird that people seem to act like lobbying doesn't exist at the city council level.
Or even just being their "friend". A little personal attention is often all that's needed to turn an otherwise aloof person into a champion.
I love how through the course of 3 comments, it went from "straightforwardly illegal" to "morally shady", then to "exactly how governments should work". What's the alternative here? Should people not be allowed to cultivate relationships with their representatives? Is it ethically dubious for you to go with a company with a responsive sales team that's friendly and answers your questions, compared to their competitor that takes 2 weeks to responds and sneers at you?
> Is it ethically dubious for you to go with a company with a responsive sales team that's friendly and answers your questions, compared to
Does said company operate against the best interests of the constituents?
Yes, I’d say it is ethically dubious, especially when it goes against what the citizens were asking for. Definitely a fine line and a bit of a gray area but still, lots of gov officials don’t get caught up in this and manage just fine. It’s the ones that are easily swayed shouldn’t be in any position of power. Also IMO lobbying should be illegal.
I'm not sure what you're responding to. I'm just saying that you don't need to bribe people. Obviously while bribery is illegal, calling someone and listening to their problems, assuring them you're on their side, and telling them they are very smart is not illegal.
First Law of Message Boards: bribery is fun to talk about, people just disagreeing about stuff and having little temper tantrums when they lose arguments is boring, ergo: bribery is everywhere.
I guess you never dealt with enterprise sales, lobbying or any of the hundred of ways we legally allow bribes. Or do you only consider it bribery if its illegal and otherwise it's all fine?
Just box office baseball tickets, just a $2k steak dinner with high end wine, just a phone call with the governor, just a gift card, just an advisor position with some equity, etc, etc, etc.
"Temper tantrum" is a satisfying way to describe the speech of people we hate. Yes, sometimes it's an appropriate description, but it's also a big red flag. I think using that phrase flippantly on a forum in fact contributes to the degradation of that forum.
> The First Law: Every forum is always in a state of constant decline.
> All forums start off good, enjoy a "honeymoon period" in which they continue to be good, and then steadily decline... from the point of view of each individual observer...
https://fishbowl.pastiche.org/2005/11/20/charles_rules_of_on...
I like this first law better.
Is this also true for organizations? Startup -> large company?
I've lived in a small community (pop<1000) and a budget of $5K could turn you into a shadow mayor.
I think a lot about another comment from a while ago that donated 100 dollars or something to his city. That had his state govenor personally call him to thank him in a 5 minute call.
It's not a bribe, but if a govenor is placing his time @ 1200/hour for an individualized bow of gratitude, I can only imagine how cheap it is for a not good govenor to sell out for his own personal interests.
At the scale these tech trillionaires are working, why not throw a few pennies at some small councilman?
Those old enough will remember when Hare Krishnas proved that for a lot of people even a single cheap flower can trigger a feeling of reciprocity. It doesn't take much. The Airplane joke exists because the best way to avoid that is to not accept. Once you do...
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.
You're right, I was speaking imprecisely. Giant national companies are not bribing 800-person Texas hamlets to get the revenue for 3-4 cameras (less the bribe).
[dead]
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.
Because proposing legislation to ban all technology after your vote to keep Flock was not in the majority is a totally normal response?
Doubt, we just haven't figured out the shells
> nor have they ever been accused of this
Sure they have. Just look at the accusation in the comment you're replying to.
credibly accused.
lol ok https://www.flocksafety.com/refer
[flagged]
"Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading."
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It's really telling how davidu, a GP at a16z, investor in Flock, author of https://a16z.com/announcement/investing-in-flock-safety/ is losing his mind about his investment being called out on corruption, which adds even more credulity to the accusation.
How is it more telling or adding more credulity? Wouldn’t I be in a strong position to know? And how am I losing my mind?
[flagged]
I think it may be useful to send a message to other rookie politicians that there will be blow-back when they have a temper tantrum and threaten to disable the internet. The world if full of these people. Some only become temporary HOA officers but a handful make it past that filter.
What blow-back? He literally can't do any of this and he knows it. Municipalities can't ban cell phones. He's just trolling.
What blow-back?
Potential removal from office. Exclusion from all the things. Anything else their community has the wherewithal to implement. It's all up to them really. In a way he self reported to the people in a small Texas town. They know what's up. Now I have a song stuck in my head.
Dismissing the action of local politics is exactly how we fall to the wayside in larger elections. Most politicians start somewhere, and actions like this should be shamed early on.
Secondly, singular emotional appeals work a lot better on convincing a populace than broad statistics. Stories like this will likely be better to push if your goal is changing the mind of the common citizen. People relate more to people than numbers.
I do local politics work.
Me too (town of seven-hundred something). What are you implying in the context of the comment you're replying to? It sounds like everything they said is more or less valid regardless of your experience.
I'm saying that I'm not dismissive of local politics. It's the politics I take most seriously and am most engaged with.
[flagged]