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

91–100 of 118 posts

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

#91

Post by happytoexplain »

tptacek wrote: post #90
bathtub365 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#92

Post by happytoexplain »

tptacek wrote: post #67
johnnyanmac wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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.

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

#93

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#94

Post by dpark »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #80
happytoexplain wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 easi…

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?

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

#95

Post by LocalH »

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.

Check his business connections

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

#96

Post by LocalH »

gruez wrote: post #78
pogopop77 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

#97

Post by tptacek »

happytoexplain wrote: post #91
tptacek wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#98

Post by tptacek »

happytoexplain wrote: post #92
tptacek wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

#99

Post by TitaRusell »

trollbridge wrote: post #39
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…

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.

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

#100

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

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.

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.

Post reply on HN