5 ms·

Just because the records created on behalf of the government are held by a private enterprise doesn't mean they aren't government records.

by bigbuppo 11mo ago

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.
        stackghost 11mo ago
        Try speaking ill of a big tech CEO with links to YC and you'll find out quickly that that's not "curious conversation" lmao
specialist 11mo ago
Yes but: Privatization is an effective way to negate the public's right know. eg Some companies have claimed trade secret protections to prevent public access. Infamously, election administration vendors like Diebold. I imagine anyone trying to investigate govt activities conducted by Palantir (for example) will run into similar stonewalling. Even getting the fulltext of contracts can be challenging.
- diydsp 11mo ago
  Not automatically. There's aleeady case law(0x1) that ruled that images captured by Flock ALPR cameras are public records, even though the data are stored by Flock (a private vendor), not directly by the city. The court rejected the notion that “because the data sits on a private server, it’s not a public record.” Instead, it said that since the surveillance is paid for by the public (taxpayers) and used by a public agency, the data must comply with the state’s public-records law. This shows that — in at least one jurisdiction — using a private company to run ALPRs doesn’t shield the data from public-records requests. (0x1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules-data-captured-flock-safety-cameras-are-public-records https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules...
  - specialist 11mo ago
    Thanks for followup and link. Interesting. IANAL: That court's decision was based on the contract w/ Flock. It does not move the needle wrt public records. I may read the decision, testimony, and any amicus briefs. During the 00's, Wash Citizen's for Open Govt had a prominent blindspot wrt tension between privatization and public records (in the shape of Tony Nixon). I'm curious if they were involved with this case, and if their positions have matured.

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.
      - stackghost 11mo ago
        Try speaking ill of a big tech CEO with links to YC and you'll find out quickly that that's not "curious conversation" lmao

specialist 11mo ago

Yes but: Privatization is an effective way to negate the public's right know. eg Some companies have claimed trade secret protections to prevent public access. Infamously, election administration vendors like Diebold. I imagine anyone trying to investigate govt activities conducted by Palantir (for example) will run into similar stonewalling. Even getting the fulltext of contracts can be challenging.

diydsp 11mo ago
Not automatically. There's aleeady case law(0x1) that ruled that images captured by Flock ALPR cameras are public records, even though the data are stored by Flock (a private vendor), not directly by the city. The court rejected the notion that “because the data sits on a private server, it’s not a public record.” Instead, it said that since the surveillance is paid for by the public (taxpayers) and used by a public agency, the data must comply with the state’s public-records law. This shows that — in at least one jurisdiction — using a private company to run ALPRs doesn’t shield the data from public-records requests. (0x1) https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules-data-captured-flock-safety-cameras-are-public-records https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/11/washington-court-rules...
- specialist 11mo ago
  Thanks for followup and link. Interesting. IANAL: That court's decision was based on the contract w/ Flock. It does not move the needle wrt public records. I may read the decision, testimony, and any amicus briefs. During the 00's, Wash Citizen's for Open Govt had a prominent blindspot wrt tension between privatization and public records (in the shape of Tony Nixon). I'm curious if they were involved with this case, and if their positions have matured.