3 ms·

The real one is people coming up with minor, but recognized, reasons to request footage from different cameras. Most everything is covered, as you mentioned. B

The real one is people coming up with minor, but recognized, reasons to request footage from different cameras. Most everything is covered, as you mentioned. But there's a huge difference between things like Obama's birth cert(canned reply after paying the fee), and the entire US populations worth of people requesting a single 5min segment from a camera... But everybody wants a different camera, date, and time. I suspect an organized campaign will sink the cities/flock, or they'll make the streams public and not retain anything. Public streams with no retention is how TXDOT handled this.

tptacek 1y ago
It's not really meaningfully different than existing closed-circuit cameras and bodycams, except for the ALPR plate/ID records they create, which states are simply going to exempt from FOIA, as Illinois did.
- butvacuum 11mo ago
  Sure. But until then, the US at large can hammer them to dust. And, I expect adding ALPR to an exemption was for simplicity's sake- since it's already general knowledge they don't have to create anything for a FOIA request. Easier to just make it explicit so they can point to the law/code.
twoodfin 11mo ago
Public streams with no retention is how TXDOT handled this. That seems like the incentive structure of the law working as intended.
msla 11mo ago
> Public streams with no retention is how TXDOT handled this. We know there's no retention because they say there is no retention and we believe them. Why is this so hard to accept? Do you think people can lie?
- butvacuum 11mo ago
  Not sure where you got the idea I thought TXDOT was not being honest. No retention, live public views, only keep aggregate metrics needed for traffic flow (the official purpose for those cameras- PSA's for traffic jams and expansion plans.). Besides, TXDOT is... Unlikely... To have a black ops budget, so if they lied it'd be public PDQ.

tptacek 1y ago

It's not really meaningfully different than existing closed-circuit cameras and bodycams, except for the ALPR plate/ID records they create, which states are simply going to exempt from FOIA, as Illinois did.

butvacuum 11mo ago
Sure. But until then, the US at large can hammer them to dust. And, I expect adding ALPR to an exemption was for simplicity's sake- since it's already general knowledge they don't have to create anything for a FOIA request. Easier to just make it explicit so they can point to the law/code.

twoodfin 11mo ago

Public streams with no retention is how TXDOT handled this. That seems like the incentive structure of the law working as intended.

msla 11mo ago

> Public streams with no retention is how TXDOT handled this. We know there's no retention because they say there is no retention and we believe them. Why is this so hard to accept? Do you think people can lie?

butvacuum 11mo ago
Not sure where you got the idea I thought TXDOT was not being honest. No retention, live public views, only keep aggregate metrics needed for traffic flow (the official purpose for those cameras- PSA's for traffic jams and expansion plans.). Besides, TXDOT is... Unlikely... To have a black ops budget, so if they lied it'd be public PDQ.