this post was submitted on 22 May 2026
178 points (98.4% liked)

Technology

84857 readers
4274 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 37 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Sounds like someone took bribe money and wasn't able to hold up their end of the deal.

[–] Etterra@discuss.online 18 points 23 hours ago

His ~~crash out~~ insane rant comes off as spiteful ramblings that might be fueled by the severing of an ~~income stream~~ bribe.

[–] ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world 29 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Oh, they're being nice when they use the phrase "crashing out" to describe what this dude actually wrote. I was curious so I followed the link in 404media out to the local paper, and was not disappointed.

From the local newspaper, this is the actual text of the ~~manifesto~~ statement the aforementioned crashed-out Texas town councilmember released after getting his contract with Flock shot down by "a standing-room-only crowd of residents voicing concerns about privacy, transparency and government overreach tied to the planned camera system." The bold is his own:

The Bandera Declaration of Digital Independence

To the Citizens of Bandera:

For months, I have listened to the outcry regarding License Plate Recognition (LPR) technology. I have seen the eyerolls, and I’ve even been met with "Nazi rhetoric", the dangerous claim that believing in accountability and community safety is somehow equivalent to totalitarianism. Comparing a neighbor’s desire for a safe street to a dark chapter of history is a classic case of comparing apples to oranges; it is a distraction used to avoid the reality of the threats our town faces today.

I’ve also read the social media comments suggesting that if I want a camera, I should "put one on my own house."

Funny thing is, I did. And that camera caught a gang of criminals from San Antonio who drove into our town in a stolen car to break into mine. My private camera caught them after the crime was done. But if we had LPR readers at our city limits, that stolen car would have been flagged the moment it entered Bandera, likely before those criminals ever reached my driveway, or yours.

I now understand your concerns and I secede. Your outcry is just too logical to ignore. Since the Council has decided we are the "Free State of Bandera", a place where the 'rights' of a car thief or human trafficker to remain anonymous apparently outweigh the right of a resident to protect their property and the safety of their family, then we must go all the way.

To ensure our historic County Seat becomes the most "traditional" sanctuary in Texas, I have requested the following for the next City Council agenda:

• A Modest Proposal for Digital Device Prohibition: A total ban on all cellular and GPS-capable devices for all operations within city limits. If we are to be truly "private," we must leave our smartphones at the city line.

• A Modest Proposal for Total Surveillance Abolition (Residential & Commercial): A total ban on all outward-facing cameras, including residential doorbells and all commercial CCTV or security camera technology. If municipal safety cameras are "invasive," then no business or homeowner should be allowed to "monitor" the public. We will remove every lens in town.

• A Modest Proposal for Total Municipal and Commercial Decommissioning: A total termination of all internet services and electronic record-keeping. We are going back to 1880, paper ledgers and cash only.

The Fiscal Reality of "Freedom": This decision didn't just cost us our safety; it cost us our wallets. By canceling this project, the Council didn't just throw away a state grant (free money); they spent $15,000 of your local tax dollars out of pocket to back out of the deal. Bragging about fiscal responsibility while paying $15,000 for nothing is a very bad deal for Bandera.

A History Lesson: In the 1880s, privacy in this County Seat was non-existent. When a stranger rode into Bandera, the Marshal gave them an interview, not "space." The livery stable registered their horse’s brand, and the merchants watched their every move. Anonymity was for outlaws; accountability was for citizens.

I even reached out to the Trump camp regarding our "Free State" logic and the way we're treating our Marshal's office and the safety of our community. The response was classic:

"Our police are being treated very, very unfairly. It’s a total disaster. We give them the tools, we get them the grants—and I love grants, we have the best grants, nobody gets grants like we do—and then these 'eye-rollers' say no? It’s unbelievable. They want the criminals to have the best technology, the newest technology, but they want our great police to have nothing. They want a 'Free State' for the bad guys. It’s very sad."

Let’s take Bandera back to 1880 properly. No double standards, no hypocrisy. If LPRs are "unconstitutional" and invade our right to "public" privacy, we need to be courageous enough to go all the way. I look forward to the "Privacy First" crowd showing up to support these bans….just remember to leave your phones at home.

Jeff Flowers
Bandera, TX

Besides threatening all and sundry with ~~a good time~~ banning all communication technology, he also throws in gems like, "I now understand your concerns and I secede" (paragraph 4). Oh, if only. He "even reached out to the Trump camp" for logic (para 11) while making a claim to "Free State" in the same breath, lol.

I don't guess anyone has the heart to tell Jeff that people pissed off enough to crowd town council meetings to standing room only are also the ones pissed off enough to start recalls and to vote, that a single vote in a local election goes many miles farther than a single vote anywhere else, and that no matter how many florid letters of support Jeff gets from a staffer trying hard to sound like the lunatic-in-chief, "the Trump camp" is not gonna spend a dime on saving a town council seat that is currently occupied by a manifesto-writing lunatic that is busily earning his town's contempt.

[–] NooBoY@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Old mate sounds like a toddler. Cos I did not get my way, we should remove everything cos privacy.

If there was a waste of money and contracts signed, why on gods green earth was there no consultation with the community first?

[–] Trex202@lemmy.world 12 points 23 hours ago

He's trying to gaslight an entire county

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 23 hours ago

Looks like someone never actually read "A Modest Proposal"

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 69 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Wish my town would ban Flock. They are popping up everywhere and it's disgusting. It amazes me how tolerant the general public is of this.

[–] Gerudo@lemmy.zip 47 points 1 day ago

To be honest, most of the public has no idea they even exist.

[–] Insekticus@aussie.zone 13 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Unfortunately, the general public has been sedated with ultra-processed and fast food, movies, games, and culture wars.

[–] Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And rock and roll, don't forget rock and roll!

[–] PhoenixDog@lemmy.world 5 points 23 hours ago

And those blasted comic books!

And having to live paycheck to paycheck, and the threat of armed, government-sanctioned violence.

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, it's manufactured consent.

[–] atrielienz@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago

What the public don't know about they can't complain about.

Flock started this campaign to proliferate their camera and surveillance equipment with a bunch of propaganda and probably just straight up bribes.

The public didn't know what was happening and now they do know and there's a growing number of people advocating against these cameras as a result.

[–] hateisreality@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago
[–] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 34 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Should put cameras everywhere this man goes and livestream every minute of his life until he shuts the fuck up.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago

Like the Terms and Conditions May Apply final scene, but you actually mean it

[–] TheFogan@programming.dev 31 points 1 day ago

He's mad because he's going to miss being able to watch playgrounds without violating his restraining orders.

[–] null@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

This makes the title seem less clickbait.

"...a staunch Flock supporter, said that if people in the town wanted privacy then the city council should basically ban all technology, essentially calling people who did not want government surveillance hypocrites."

[–] SalamenceFury@piefed.social 30 points 1 day ago

Aww, did the people tell you to fuck off?

YTrnlZfJ7HO36mH.gif

[–] sirico@feddit.uk 4 points 23 hours ago

Needs to be national laws for this sort of thing being as stocks are no longer allowed

[–] tal@lemmy.today 21 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

So, there is actually a point there in that there is a lot of movement data harvested from cell phones, and I think that we could probably improve on the situation there if we wanted. The town government level is probably not in a great place to do that, but compared to ALPRs:

  • Cell phones can be turned off.

  • Cell phones can have their GPS stuff and/or location services disabled, though I realize that a limited number of people are going to actually do so. You cannot legally cover up a license plate.

  • For Android (and I assume iOS, though I haven't looked at the situation there), the OS permission system permits restricting an app permission to data that would permit it to infer location. It may not be perfect


for example, I've seen research projects that try to do things like use accelerometer data and match it to street maps to try to figure out where someone is without access to Bluetooth/WiFi beacons or GPS data. But certainly there are real efforts to limit that.

[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 2 points 22 hours ago

Yup. This man thinks his argument means we should accept all forms of privacy invasion. He could bring up laws to protect their towns private information via forcing providers to agree to the towns regulations.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 9 points 1 day ago

Cell phones can be turned off.

Or better yet, they can be left at home, playing a long-ass youtube playlist. Then you have a decent alibi: you were at home watching youtube at that time, and your phone data proves it.

[–] XLE@piefed.social 11 points 1 day ago

Google Play Services is the biggest bane of privacy on Google's official Android itself (It feeds motion data to applications without giving you an opt-out). But like you mentioned, people can leave their phone at home, or put it in a Faraday cage, disable Play Services, or install Graphene and local mapping app.

If anybody's intrigued by those options, I hope they follow up on them.

Well now you know who got the Flock kickbacks and free dinners to vote yes on their contract.

[–] vext01@feddit.uk 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If you dont know Flock is a camera, this headline is really hard to parse!

[–] null@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

I know what Flock is and I still don't understand the title.

[–] wesker 7 points 1 day ago

Sounds kind-of peaceful as fuck.

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fuck it. Let’s ban cellphones and GPS. It’s be better for us in the long run.

[–] dogslayeggs@lemmy.world 3 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

GPS is a broadcast-only system. It is not the source of your privacy concerns. What your cellphone/car/whatever does with that broadcast data is not GPS's fault.

[–] W3dd1e@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago

Good info! But, I don’t actually think any of those should be banned. I was just trying to make a point. :)