Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 118 posts

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

#21

Post by nemomarx »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #16
arikrahman wrote: post #2

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.

[flagged]

anecdotes about whether people like Flock cameras where they live are kinda useful, I think? maybe it'll inspire other city council votes elsewhere

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

#22

Post by davidu »

dogleash wrote: post #19
davidu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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

#23

Post by OkayPhysicist »

VoidWhisperer wrote: post #7

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.

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

#24

Post by kotaKat »

davidu wrote: post #20
davidu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[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

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

#25

Post by dawnerd »

ofjcihen wrote: post #3

[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

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

#26

Post by downrightmike »

davidu wrote: post #13
ofjcihen wrote: post #3

[flagged]

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.

Doubt, we just haven't figured out the shells

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

#27

Post by mckn1ght »

nemomarx wrote: post #12
mckn1ght wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

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.

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

#28

Post by sensen »

nemomarx wrote: post #12
mckn1ght wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[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.

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

#29

Post by kspacewalk2 »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #14

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.

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.

Post reply on HN