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

Post by array_key_first » Wed, May 20, 2026, 9:27 PM UTC

ianm218 wrote: post #88

johnnyanmac wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

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.

Post by happytoexplain » Wed, May 20, 2026, 9:50 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #41

bob001 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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.

Post by mingus88 » Wed, May 20, 2026, 10:49 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #97

happytoexplain wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by tptacek » Wed, May 20, 2026, 10:58 PM UTC

mingus88 wrote: post #105

tptacek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Post by ofjcihen » Wed, May 20, 2026, 11:29 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #33

ofjcihen wrote: post #3

[flagged]

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.