Angry tiny Texas town council member proposes total ban on cellular and GPS devices in protest over AI dispute — says 'Let’s take Bandera back to 1880' after town votes to dump AI-powered license plate reader

a Flock LPR camera
(Image credit: Getty Images)

Bandera, Texas, a small town of around 900 residents located about 40 miles northeast of San Antonio, Texas, opted to cancel its Flock AI contract. Three of the five-member town council voted to end the AI company’s services, after months of complaints from people who are wary about AI-powered government surveillance. However, one of the two people who wanted the security program to continue has publicly crashed out: According to 404 Media, councilor Jeff Flowers proposes that the town go back to a pre-digital age if its people want complete privacy.

“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,” Flowers wrote in the local newspaper.

He also added, “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.”

The town received a grant from the state of Texas to have eight Flock Safety AI license plate readers installed, but it turns out that its people do not want it. One resident said during a town hall that the community did not vote on the installation of these cameras, with another saying, “We don’t need to implement mass government surveillance in our town.” Aside from the protests during town meetings, the cameras themselves were repeatedly vandalized and had their poles cut down. The town had to pay for these repairs, meaning keeping the cameras operational is costing it extra.

Flock’s AI-powered license plate readers are in the center of several debates about security and privacy across the nation. While law enforcement agencies have praised the central database system used by the company, it’s also the same feature that has many people concerned. It’s feared that the authorities will use the data gathered by these cameras for targeting minorities and protesters, especially as reports have surfaced that immigration authorities have allegedly accessed the data gathered by the company without informing local police.

Bandera isn’t the only municipality to have turned off their Flock cameras. TechSpot says that at least 53 other jurisdictions located in 20 states have rejected the surveillance system in just the past six months. Flowers is framing the townspeople’s rejection of the AI-powered LPR system as a pushback against technology — but residents’ concerns aren’t just about privacy: they’re also about trust.

Google Preferred Source

Follow Tom's Hardware on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Latest Videos From
Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • bdeimen
    A device that I can put in a faraday bag if I want to is in no way the same as a publicly established system that has already repeatedly been shown to be abused.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    Like anything else, there are pros and cons to this tech. On one hand it could help with finding a kidnap victim, or stolen vehicle. The other, is it could be used for the very things the townsfolk are concerned about. There needs to be regulations in place, that protects the constitutional rights of people, for this kind of surveillance. I highly doubt that is the case, or the town would have been made aware of such things, and this story would have never been a thing.
    Reply
  • passivecool
    First, @logainofhades, while reading the article I was of the opinion that it would not be possible to write a non-political, purely technical comment, or at least one acceptable as per TH forum rules. You displayed great skills dancing on that razor blade, kudos! I hope I can follow your acrobatics without being chopped off.

    Argument 1:Psychology 101. No one can bear the feeling of being observed and evaluated all the time. The measurement always changes that which is measured. This feeling of control can lead to different reactions, from complacency, to militant resistance, to paranoic paralysis. We all insist on our right to misbehave, no?

    Argument 2.
    if a community decides; we have problems with speeding or running red lights or crime or whatever at THIS intersection/ on THIS road, and therefore we are going to monitor it AND we will put up a warning signs to modulate behavior HERE then... general acceptance is generally very high. Cuz it is not for 'them' but for 'us'.

    DUH. We can dance around the maypole of tech and IT, but in the end, 90% of all of this is about real PEOPLE! Communication with people with their and concerns and needs and fears, their community and their environment. AI and data centers and traffic monitors we seem to have lost the ability to talk to each other in a normal, civilized, respectful way.

    Plead 1. can we all try to go back to disagreeing agreeably? With the understanding that most people want to do the right thing, and that it is strenuous to discuss and find the best compromise but that is worth the effort? Long stretch i know. Tech can not save the world for us, we need to take a deep breath and stop attacking each other.
    Reply
  • vern72
    Why would this PERSON have an INTEREST in this??? Oh!
    Reply
  • bill001g
    All depends on what if any restrictions there are to accessing the data. If it was who every is willing to pay you can be sure divorce attorneys would be good customers looking for cheating spouses.

    The police can already get a court order and live track phones for people they are trying to arrest.

    This is hard to say the police near me caught someone who car jacked a woman within minutes using flock data which means they got the data without a court order.

    What is strange is they have 3 mounted in the parking lot of a small strip mall but none for miles around. It is not even on a main road so I wonder what purpose it serves...seeing who is shopping at the dollar store.
    Reply
  • SmokyBarnable
    The councilor’s argument is basically: tech privacy invasion is already bad and you put up with it, so let’s make it worse.
    Reply
  • jabliese
    Grant money to put it up, Bandera paid Flock 17k for this year. Sounds a little pricey for the benefit, with the population around 924.
    Reply