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

51–60 of 118 posts

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

#51

Post by johnnyanmac »

ianm218 wrote: post #32
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.

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 f…

> 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.

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

#52

Post by arkadiytehgraet »

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]

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.

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

#53

Post by intrikate »

"...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.

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

#54

Post by Bender »

gruez wrote: post #45
dawnerd wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 my opinion that should be enough to get some investigative journalists and private investigators poking around. Assuming investigative journalists are still a thing.

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

#55

Post by mckn1ght »

sensen wrote: post #28
nemomarx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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?

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

#56

Post by tclancy »

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.

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

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

#57

Post by johnnyanmac »

tptacek wrote: post #30

[flagged]

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.

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

#58

Post by Bender »

beepbooptheory wrote: post #17

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

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

#59

Post by projektfu »

dawnerd wrote: post #42
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.

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.

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

#60

Post by Bjartr »

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...

Post reply on HN