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

81–90 of 118 posts

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

#81

Post by bob001 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #44
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.

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 tri…

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...

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

#82

Post by redsocksfan45 »

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.

[dead]

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

#83

Post by bathtub365 »

Bjartr wrote: post #60

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…

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.

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

#84

Post by mghackerlady »

tclancy wrote: post #56
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.

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

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

#85

Post by dawnerd »

gruez wrote: post #73
projektfu wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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

#86

Post by tclancy »

mghackerlady wrote: post #84
tclancy wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#87

Post by dpark »

mckn1ght wrote: post #55
sensen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 b…

> 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.

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

#88

Post by ianm218 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #51
ianm218 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 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.

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

#89

Post by summermusic »

intrikate wrote: post #53

"...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.

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

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

#90

Post by tptacek »

bathtub365 wrote: post #83
Bjartr wrote: post #60

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…

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.

Post reply on HN