4 ms·

Flock is a private company, right. That's the whole schtick. Like, Flock can retain records indefinitely for example, they may sell those records to the governm

Flock is a private company, right. That's the whole schtick. Like, Flock can retain records indefinitely for example, they may sell those records to the government but they're a private party.

tptacek 11mo ago
What's your point? To the extent they're a private company you're even less likely to get access to records from Flock ALPR cameras.
- calvinmorrison 11mo ago
  > at the very least in my state (Illinois), it's not lawful for public bodies to disclose the license plate numbers read from ALPR cameras, so this data set is necessarily incomplete. They're not a public body, that was my point
  - hopelite 11mo ago
    They de facto are because they only place cameras in public places and on public land by contract with the government in one form or another; be it with a treasonous sheriff or a treasonous state executive and legislature. The public would not be talking about Flock if they had not worked to create a treasonous surveillance state and instead only did things like monitored truck movements in a logistics depot. The private contracts for things like HOA neighborhoods and corporations, e.g., big box store loss prevention and customer data tracking, but those’s are a totally different issue that have nothing to do with the use of public funds and power for mass surveillance.
    - RHSeeger 11mo ago
      This feels a lot like "Yeah, but we'll do it anyways until a court makes us stop; because the profit is more than the fine"
    - immibis 11mo ago
      but thry're not literally the government and the relevant laws only affect the literal government.
      - svnt 11mo ago
        No, there is legal precedent that private companies who perform government services are subject to the same laws.
        tptacek 11mo ago
        This is generally not the case.
- bigbuppo 11mo ago
  Just because the records created on behalf of the government are held by a private enterprise doesn't mean they aren't government records.
  - tptacek 11mo ago
    Right, I agree. My point is that the FOIA laws of many states forbid disclosing the data this web page purports to surface.
    - stackghost 11mo ago
      [flagged]
      - tptacek 11mo ago
        Really? Me of all people? What about my Slovak ethnic identity do you think so attunes me to the concerns you're bringing?
        pppppiiiiiuuuuu 11mo ago
        It's clear in context that they mean your background in computer security and political activism, I don't know where you are getting the idea that it's an comment on your ethnicity.
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
        stackghost 11mo ago
        The HN guidelines ask users to assume the most charitable interpretation/good faith. Even for "big name" accounts.
        lovich 11mo ago
        "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." Is the response I get for my good faith arguments. This is a forum run by tech oligarchs. Speech is being modified on here.
dehrmann 11mo ago
Would they be subject to CCPA, then?
FireBeyond 11mo ago
Yeah, and as an ex-employee, that's something they heavily "rely" on, and push as an end run around laws. Like in my state, LE can't collect this stuff directly. Then they started saying "Well, we can do this..." and started contracting for private companies to do the collection on their behalf. When _that_ was legislated away, they've now pivoted to "Well, if the company is doing it of their own accord, we can still purchase the data since it wasn't, technically, created for us."

Flock is a private company, right. That's the whole schtick. Like, Flock can retain records indefinitely for example, they may sell those records to the government but they're a private party.

tptacek 11mo ago

What's your point? To the extent they're a private company you're even less likely to get access to records from Flock ALPR cameras.

calvinmorrison 11mo ago
> at the very least in my state (Illinois), it's not lawful for public bodies to disclose the license plate numbers read from ALPR cameras, so this data set is necessarily incomplete. They're not a public body, that was my point
- hopelite 11mo ago
  They de facto are because they only place cameras in public places and on public land by contract with the government in one form or another; be it with a treasonous sheriff or a treasonous state executive and legislature. The public would not be talking about Flock if they had not worked to create a treasonous surveillance state and instead only did things like monitored truck movements in a logistics depot. The private contracts for things like HOA neighborhoods and corporations, e.g., big box store loss prevention and customer data tracking, but those’s are a totally different issue that have nothing to do with the use of public funds and power for mass surveillance.
  - RHSeeger 11mo ago
    This feels a lot like "Yeah, but we'll do it anyways until a court makes us stop; because the profit is more than the fine"
  - immibis 11mo ago
    but thry're not literally the government and the relevant laws only affect the literal government.
    - svnt 11mo ago
      No, there is legal precedent that private companies who perform government services are subject to the same laws.
      - tptacek 11mo ago
        This is generally not the case.
bigbuppo 11mo ago
Just because the records created on behalf of the government are held by a private enterprise doesn't mean they aren't government records.
- tptacek 11mo ago
  Right, I agree. My point is that the FOIA laws of many states forbid disclosing the data this web page purports to surface.
  - stackghost 11mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tptacek 11mo ago
      Really? Me of all people? What about my Slovak ethnic identity do you think so attunes me to the concerns you're bringing?
      - pppppiiiiiuuuuu 11mo ago
        It's clear in context that they mean your background in computer security and political activism, I don't know where you are getting the idea that it's an comment on your ethnicity.
        deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
      - stackghost 11mo ago
        The HN guidelines ask users to assume the most charitable interpretation/good faith. Even for "big name" accounts.
        lovich 11mo ago
        "You're posting too fast. Please slow down. Thanks." Is the response I get for my good faith arguments. This is a forum run by tech oligarchs. Speech is being modified on here.

dehrmann 11mo ago

Would they be subject to CCPA, then?

FireBeyond 11mo ago

Yeah, and as an ex-employee, that's something they heavily "rely" on, and push as an end run around laws. Like in my state, LE can't collect this stuff directly. Then they started saying "Well, we can do this..." and started contracting for private companies to do the collection on their behalf. When _that_ was legislated away, they've now pivoted to "Well, if the company is doing it of their own accord, we can still purchase the data since it wasn't, technically, created for us."