In his recent “Bandera Declaration of Digital Independence,” Councilman Jeff Flowers attempted to use satire to defend Flock’s License Plate Recognition (LPR) cameras and criticizes citizens raising concerns about privacy and government surveillance.
He referenced that his article was in the tradition of Jonathan Swift’s famous satirical essay “A Modest Proposal.” Swift uses absurdity and exaggeration to expose the failures and arrogance of those in power. There is an important difference between Swift’s work and Mr. Flowers’ article. Swift’s satire was aimed at criticizing those in power on behalf of ordinary citizens. Mr. Flowers is not an outsider challenging authority. He is a sitting member of City Council criticizing ordinary people who disagree with expanding surveillance technology.
The irony is that Flowers’ article defends power and ridicules citizens questioning it.
Mr. Flowers attempts to frame opposition to Flock cameras as irrational by reducing privacy concerns to absurd extremes: banning phones, banning Ring cameras, eliminating technology altogether. Citizens raising concerns about privacy are not demanding Bandera “return to 1880” by banning or eliminating technology. They are raising reasonable concerns about privacy, oversight, data collection and how much government monitoring belongs in our small town.
Their concerns should be heard, not mocked or dismissed.
There is also a factual issue that deserves clarification. Mr. Flowers stated that the DMV state grant paid 100% of the cost and subscription for the Flock cameras. In reality, it was a 20% matching grant which was reimbursed upon receipt of documentation. The citizens were repeatedly told during discussions that the grant could only be used for Flock cameras and not for other programs or public safety priorities. This was not the case, and the public deserves a more honest and transparent conversation about how these funds were presented and whether other options were ever seriously considered.
Whether someone supports or opposes Flock cameras, this debate deserves seriousness and respect. Instead, the article reduces concerned citizens to caricatures by suggesting they somehow support criminals or oppose public safety itself.
The question is not whether law enforcement should have tools. Of course they should. The real question is where the limits are, who controls the information, and what protection exists for ordinary citizens. Do citizens have the right to debate legitimate public concerns without being mocked by elected officials?
Conversation is not a threat to democracy It’s part of living in a free country. Reasonable people can disagree about Flock cameras, but elected officials should probably spend more time listening to citizens than mocking them.
Laura Devenport Bandera
.png)
