5 ms·
Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act
- p_ing 1y agoFull title too long for HN: Court denies request that it find Flock Safety camera data is exempt from Public Records Act
- CalChris 1y agoNo paywall article. https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exempt-flock-footage-from-public-records-act/ https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exemp...
- foundart 1y agowith a better headline: "Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act"
- p_ing 1y agoThanks, that is better. Also: Redmond temporarily suspends use of Flock cameras - https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/redmond-police-department-suspends-use-flock-license-plate-readers/281-f9882e51-cf51-4c29-99e3-e4d008b39957 https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/redmond-police-depa...
- exmadscientist 1y agoAnyone have or know how to dig up the opinion? It looks like (but I'm not sure that) this is Skagit County Superior Court case number 252007173, but that doesn't seem to get me very far.
- c420 1y agoGonna need to contact the county clerk. Using https://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.contentDisplay&location=nameAndCaseSearch https://www.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm?fa=home.contentDisplay&l... and entering superior court and the county then the case number returns "Status: Archived No Docket Info" for both plaintiffs and the defendant.
- Arrath 1y agoGood, such records shouldn't be exempt. So what if they were gathered by a third party, it was a service carried out under request of the local government/law enforcement, and paid for by public money.
- midnitewarrior 11mo agoIf this weren't the case, any agency could just hire a 3rd party to prepare anything they wanted to avoid being subject to public scrutiny.
- WarOnPrivacy 1y ago> Good, such records shouldn't be exempt. Absolutely. Govs fight transparency to hide their actions - ultimately so they can avoid accountability.
- Razengan 1y agoReminds me of the "ag gag laws" that prohibit photography/filming of the conditions of animals and their treatment on "factory farms": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
- caymanjim 1y agoSuch records shouldn't exist in the first place. I agree they shouldn't be exempt if they do, but let's not just accept that it's okay to have a fleet of cameras recording us 24/7 everywhere we go, managed by a private entity, accessed freely and without any probable cause by local and federal agencies who don't even communicate with each other.
- jmpman 1y agohttps://www.cnn.com/2025/11/08/us/melodee-buzzard-missing-search-update https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/08/us/melodee-buzzard-missing-se... How was all of this data gathered without being a violation?
- FireBeyond 1y agoThis is a reasonably common (sadly) methodology that many agencies utilize. "We are not legally permitted to blanket surveil/ALPR entire neighborhoods/towns, etc. ... ... and we can't pay a private company to do this for us ... ... but nothing prevents us from paying a private company who is doing it already, to give us that data." The line between the last two is blurry but also utilized - you can't put out an RFP for a company to capture such data that you're not permitted to, but if that company is doing it because it sees a/your market for it, then it's a free-for-all.
- RHSeeger 1y agoAnd, I assume, you can pay them to put up a "this is how fast you are going, slow down" sign. And they can add a camera to it, that has nothing to do with you paying them to put it up in the first place... and then sell them access to data from the camera.
- FireBeyond 1y agoYeah, it's very nudge nudge wink wink. Which is why Flock advertises to HOAs and private businesses too. Because then they'll agree to share their data and hey look, Flock can say "we have ALPR and other data from this HOA, you can have it because you didn't ask us to get it for you".
- deaux 1y agoFlock (YC S17) Bets on this strategy having been part of their seed pitch deck? Guess they would've left it out, keeping it as nudge nudge wink wink and discussing during QA.
- deleted 1y ago
- 1970-01-01 1y agoThis is just step 1 of many. The lawyers at Fluck will appeal. I know what I typed.
- shawn_w 1y agoIf you're out driving on public roads do you really have any expectation of privacy? Anybody can take a picture of your car... Another non-paywalled article on the case: https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigators/judge-orders-washington-police-release-surveillance-camera-data-privacy-questions/281-c2037d52-6afb-4bf7-95ad-0eceaf477864 https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigat...
- calmbonsai 1y agoCourts have found that scale and intent matter. An offhand picture by a private individual is OK, but a large scale organized hoovering of personally identifying information is not OK. The finding is also the denial of an exemption appeal which has a much lower legal threshold to clear.
- brookst 1y agoSources?
- pilingual 1y agoThe basis for the current litigation Schmidt v. City of Norfolk[0] is the 2018 Supreme Court decision Carpenter v. United States.[1] The ruling in Carpenter is essentially that you can't have prolonged surveillance without a warrant. [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf [0] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69288422/schmidt-v-city-of-norfolk/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69288422/schmidt-v-city...
- pilingual 1y ago> Anybody can take a picture of your car But they don't. Once my car drove by a Google street view vehicle. I thought it was cool. If a Google street view vehicle (or, nowadays, Amazon truck) drove circles around my neighborhood collecting wearabouts of all cars I'd find that concerning. The way these camera systems are set up is tantamount to an ankle monitor. Who wants to live like that?
- Wistar 1y agoThere are quite a few private Flock camera installations (HOA, neighborhood, business) in my locale. I assume those are exempt from FOIA requests but wonder if law enforcement can access that data.
- tptacek 1y agoThose private installations are almost certainly not subject to FOIA (they wouldn't be in Illinois, hard to see how they would be in any state). Without a court order, none of them should be exposed to law enforcement, though there might be opt-out features that have that effect.
- Wistar 1y agoI was wondering if Flock shares the private-contract camera data with law enforcement.
- gusgus01 1y agoIt comes down to the individual agreements that those private-contract cameras have with Flock, which unfortunately means it might be a case by case basis to understand if any one has conditions that allow sharing with law enforcement. IT was recently discovered that local police departments that had Flock contracts that limited the police department's access did not restrict general access, so Flock could still use it how they wanted and let federal agencies (ICE) use it: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachusetts-and-updates https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/flock-massachus...
- saghm 11mo agoIn addition to the potential for agreements about sharing info from the server side that the sibling comment points out, there's also presumably nothing stopping the owners of the private cameras from voluntarily sharing footage with law enforcement. It's not completely implausible that the owners have them up to be able to defend against false allegations about what might have occurred in view of the cameras, but this doesn't seem nearly as likely a motivation as physical security, and barring them having some sort of private security force that they feel confident in dealing with any incidents they're unhappy with, the intent is probably to sometimes share footage with the cops.
- carimura 1y agoThese camera's are on all 3 egress routes from our home. I asked our local sheriff's department if they could use these to enforce state-wide curfews and after hemming and hawing they admitted "if it was a crime than in theory, yes".
- burnt-resistor 1y agoDrone, paint can, mud, or a very heavy hat. Until they're made too expensive to maintain, they'll stay in business selling your movements to data brokers, police, intelligence agencies, stalkers, thieves, and/or scammers to mine for all time for any reason at all.
- actionfromafar 1y ago” brokers, police, intelligence agencies, stalkers, thieves, and/or scammers” Why use the full name? They are known as Palantir.
- AniseAbyss 11mo ago[dead]
- Hendrikto 1y ago> 451: Unavailable due to legal reasons > We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact classified@skagitpublishing.com or call 360-424-3251.
- deaux 1y agoEvery time I see this in the comments it's funny that they don't block me while connecting from country whose digital privacy laws are basically an even stronger version of the GDPR. Tells you about their true reasoning.
- cylemons 1y agoseriously, what would their true reasoning be
- almostnormal 1y agoFrom which country are you connecting?
- deaux 1y agoSouth Korea - I was there until very recently. Feel free to look up the privacy laws, they're basically GDPR with extra cherries on top and a chocolate flake. Never got blocked by any of the websites called out here for blocking EU IPs on GDPR grounds.
- einsteinx2 11mo agoHas South Korea fined any foreign companies a billion dollars for violating their privacy laws? I have a feeling that may be the difference.
- kelnos 1y agoNot sure what country you live in, but my guess would be that your country hasn't made the same kind of noises about how wide-ranging GDPR enforcement actions can be. Personally I don't know about non-EU/UK countries with GDPR-style (or stronger) laws, so if I were operating a website that needed GDPR compliance (and decided to instead block visitors from the EU/UK), I probably would have no idea about needing to do something about visitors from your country. So I expect their "true reasoning" is just ignorance.
- Terr_ 1y agoSome may argue the collected public driving information is too dangerous/sensitive to be available under the PRA... But in that case it's ALSO too dangerous/sensitive for them to be aggregating it uncontrolled in the first place. So I see this as a good ruling: While I don't want my driving data public, I'd rather everyone's be equally public, rather than allowing shady and unaccountable forces to decide who "deserves" privacy and who doesn't. In other words, if Elon Musk or Local Town Mayor can surveil my daily drives, I should be able to see theirs too. ____ Aside: Imagine a journalistic cooperative that uses similar cameras to record all traffic at the driveways of the rich/politicians, airports, luxury hotels and resorts, etc. Magically, legislators will acquire opinions against such systems... though not necessarily honest or evenhanded ones, that'll still be a problem.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- upboundspiral 1y agoOne thing that shocked me is how pervasive flock is. Major US cities have hundreds if not thousands of flock cameras https://deflock.me/map https://deflock.me/map. I truly believe that technology like this, implemented in the way that it is, is incredibly dangerous. They are creating a nationwide spynet, selling everyone's information, and lying about this fact. Both sides of the political isle will inevitably abuse this power. It needs to be pushed back against strongly now and forever more. I encourage people to show up to city council meetings if adding flock to your city is on the agenda. And if it is already in your city then the contract will need to be renewed at some point and you can contest it then. Emailing your representatives is not always effective, but if thousands of people do so then it does start making a dent. Denver town hall where multiple sources of flock lying and deceiving the government and the people are brought up: https://youtu.be/OR_qolqQ2fM https://youtu.be/OR_qolqQ2fM
- stavros 1y agoAnother thing also makes a dent: destroy the cameras where you see them.
- apwheele 1y agoFor the more specific part that the PD states it does not physically save the data locally, I do work with cities Police departments and Flock will integrate with the local record management system. I suspect they probably do have the data locally integrated (at least for the time period the state allows them to retain the records). But even if they do not, many police departments that would not be an excuse (although you need to request fast, many states only retain for 30 days or less now).
- SilverElfin 11mo agoTerrible ruling. We need these cameras to efficiently deal with crime. Otherwise how do you investigate and actually find suspects? It takes enormous resources and cities often don’t have the resources. The data should only be accessed by authorities with warrants. But making it subject to public access risks everyone’s safety. For example stalkers could use that data. I understand the risks of mass surveillance but we don’t live in a dystopia. We can require certain process for public agencies to have access to the data (like court approved warrants or imminent harm or whatever) and keep it otherwise private. Just like some other information deemed confidential isn’t subject to transparency laws.