Texas Councilman Proposes Total Internet and Smartphone Ban Following Surveillance Dispute
Texas, Wednesday, 20 May 2026.
After residents rejected police surveillance cameras, a Texas councilman proposed a retaliatory ban on all internet and cellular devices, aiming to push the town back to an 1880s economy.
The Catalyst for the Digital Ban
In the small town of Bandera, Texas, home to a population of approximately 900 residents, local governance has collided fiercely with privacy activism [1][2]. The friction began over a state grant utilized to install eight Flock Safety artificial intelligence license plate reader cameras [1]. The surveillance program, which cost $14,000, was designed to store captured license plate data for 30 days [2]. Based on the program’s total cost, the town spent an average of 1750 dollars per camera installation [1][2].
The “Bandera Declaration of Digital Independence”
In a striking display of political retaliation following the May 12 vote, City Councilmember Jeff Flowers [alert! ‘Sources do not specify the political party affiliation of Councilmember Flowers or the Bandera City Council’] announced his intent to introduce a sweeping legislative proposal at an upcoming city council meeting [1]. Dubbed the “Bandera Declaration of Digital Independence,” the measure is currently only a proposal and not an implemented policy [1]. If passed, it would mandate a total ban on all cellular and GPS-capable devices for any operations within city limits [1][3].
Privacy Activism Meets Municipal Realities
Councilmember Flowers has positioned his proposal as a critique of what he perceives as the hypocrisy of privacy advocates. In a written statement regarding the technology ban, Flowers argued that comparing the desire for safe streets to dark historical chapters is a distraction from the real threats facing the town [1]. He further challenged his constituents’ commitment to privacy, stating, “If we are to be truly ‘private,’ we must leave our smartphones at the city line” [1]. Critics and media analysts have characterized this legislative push as a “tantrum” that highlights how some local officials respond to grassroots privacy activism [2].