5 ms·

Yeah it's kinda crazy you can't legally take them down even if they are banned/contract expires. IKE Skelton, a county commissioner took it into his own hands a

Yeah it's kinda crazy you can't legally take them down even if they are banned/contract expires. IKE Skelton, a county commissioner took it into his own hands and they were pressing felony charges on him. Not sure what ended up happening. Basically flock wouldn't respond to take them down, he felt it was his duty to remove them, he brought them back to his office, and then the state hunted him down. Here is a podcast about it. https://internationalflavor.podbean.com/e/the-surveillance-state-strikes-back-the-trial-of-camden-county-s-defender/ https://internationalflavor.podbean.com/e/the-surveillance-s...

glaslong 3mo ago
I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? Presumably they're installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits that allow them the space and electrical, which all goes away and requires their removal. Sorry if this is answered in the pod, don't have time for it immediately.
- smalltorch 3mo ago
  Id have to re-listen as well for all the details. But I think this is slightly different than the headline here. In this case, the county voted for an ordinance banning them. Ike was threatened saying your going to be charged this is potentially state property, he did a sunshine request to see that they were privately owned by flock. Then he requested flock take them down but they didn't. After a few months he decided he will enforce the ordinance as the sheriff refused too. He took them down brought them to his office. Then later 5 state officers (4 in plain clothing, one in uniform) were looking for him at his house. He brought them to the cameras and said here have them back. Still got charged with theft somehow... Moral of the story, that doesn't really sound like democracy to me. That sounds like kinda the opposite of democracy. Anyway it's worth a listen if you have time. This isn't how these things should go and shows there is a little more than meets the eye here. Even if citizens perfectly execute democracy, these things may not budge. And there is a larger net of protection keeping these in place.
  - alhirzel 3mo ago
    Didn't know about sunshine request - the website[1] - until I searched for this term! [1]: https://www.sunshinerequest.com/ https://www.sunshinerequest.com/
    - smalltorch 3mo ago
      Im not sure if there is a way to verify that the one he is talking about, but for public records request muckrock is great. https://www.muckrock.com https://www.muckrock.com
      - toomuchtodo 3mo ago
        MuckRock is the gold standard for systematizing FOIA requests imho.
      - alhirzel 3mo ago
        Thank you for sharing this!
    - tptacek 3mo ago
      This is just FOIA. You don't need any special website or process; just Google [(your state) FOIA] or [(your municipality) FOIA officer]. In Illinois, you can simply email free-form requests for documents and start a 10-day clock on the public body's side.
      - alright2565 3mo ago
        The problem is following up. It's hard to understand the process, and what to do when the public body doesn't respond. If nothing else, the Sunshine Request site is a good place to get form emails for these requests from.
        chaps 3mo ago
        What you do is: you sue. On my 13th FOIA lawsuit and I have a couple more in the works ;) Depending on where you're from, it's pretty easy to find a pro bono attorney. In Illinois, the plaintiff's attorneys recoup their costs on a successful win.
- ryukoposting 3mo ago
  > I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? IANAL but based on the facts available to me, they can't. It's a sham held up by intimidating local officials. The cameras were installed on public property, that's that. If they somehow keep this nonsense running for very long, I'd anticipate a Meigs Field-esque incident at some point.
  - chasd00 3mo ago
    If the cameras and poles are private property then, contract or not, taking them is theft is it not? You'll get in trouble taking lime scooters and throwing them in the lake regardless of whatever contract exists or doesn't exist.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - ryukoposting 3mo ago
      The cameras and poles are private equipment installed on public property. If the city terminates the contract and says "get rid of it" and the contractor says "no," well someone has to deal with it. Imagine if a power company got cleared to bury a bunch of power lines, but they left all the unused poles in the ground, on land they no longer have rights to. That's closer to the situation we're dealing with here. Wireless and solar make some of the more visceral approaches to this problem ineffective. In the past, the city could have strongarmed Flock by severing power or data service somewhere on the public side. I'd bet there are still tons of tricks LA can pull, though. These 1000 9-square foot patches of land have been rezoned as green space, we're clearing it for native plant life. Or, like I said, just pull a Daley and remove them. The city owns the land. Flock can complain, they can sue, and they might even win. But once the city removes the cameras, Flock can't put them back. The city owns the land, and Flock has no rights to it.
- adolph 3mo ago
  > installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits Another option might be right of way or easement permitting, similar to how utility poles and such are regulated as private property with an allowance to be in a public space. If the provider got a permit to use the right of way separate from the contract, then the provider would retain the same right to be there as any other infrastructure.
bmau5 3mo ago
If Flock can put them up, can I/my city just decide to put signs or lasers in front of the cameras?
- drdaeman 3mo ago
  Or just cut the power?
  - nerdsniper 3mo ago
    They have little solar panels.
    - rconti 3mo ago
      plastic bag!
      - drdaeman 3mo ago
        Eww, plastic. A bird feeder right above the camera would do the trick just fine. Flock doesn’t own the pole, right?
- butlike 3mo ago
  There's instagram stories of people riding around destroying them, so yes, it's possible.
tptacek 3mo ago
You can definitely take the cameras down. We did, there was zero drama. On the other hand, it wouldn't be surprising if a single county commissioner got in trouble for just deciding by fiat to take civic infrastructure down himself. That's not a power county commissioners have. Was there a county board vote authorizing that action?
- smalltorch 3mo ago
  In this case, law enforcement selectively enforced local laws. So the commissioner exhausted his options. And flock didn't seem to be bothered by breaking the local laws and their action was inaction. So what else are you suppose to do? I think it's reasonable to decide that if no one is enforcing the new local law, that it may be the commissioners purview and authority to enforce after exhausting all his options. Charging the commissioner with felony theft is clearly just bullying at that point.
  - kevin_thibedeau 3mo ago
    > So what else are you suppose to do? File a civil suit and get a court order for their removal.
    - smalltorch 3mo ago
      Silliness. Who enforces it then? The local law banning it was already equally as valid as a court order would have been. Would the county need to ask the judge to take it down? Someone has to physically take it down and I'm guessing flock didn't put that in the budget.
      - tptacek 3mo ago
        The court enforces it. We're getting into movie plot politics here. The sheriff's department will not in fact ignore a district court ruling. These scenarios rapidly reach the point where the sheriff is removed from office and imprisoned for some amount of time. This is what happened to Joe Arpaio. This is much simpler in a municipality: the board simply fires the village manager and the chief. A sheriff is usually an elected though. Before you reach the point of suing, you cancel contracts, payments, IT infrastructure, and have public works remove the cameras from any county-owned infrastructure. I mean, all this is pretty silly, though, because what you really do is just turn the cameras off.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

glaslong 3mo ago

I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? Presumably they're installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits that allow them the space and electrical, which all goes away and requires their removal. Sorry if this is answered in the pod, don't have time for it immediately.

smalltorch 3mo ago
Id have to re-listen as well for all the details. But I think this is slightly different than the headline here. In this case, the county voted for an ordinance banning them. Ike was threatened saying your going to be charged this is potentially state property, he did a sunshine request to see that they were privately owned by flock. Then he requested flock take them down but they didn't. After a few months he decided he will enforce the ordinance as the sheriff refused too. He took them down brought them to his office. Then later 5 state officers (4 in plain clothing, one in uniform) were looking for him at his house. He brought them to the cameras and said here have them back. Still got charged with theft somehow... Moral of the story, that doesn't really sound like democracy to me. That sounds like kinda the opposite of democracy. Anyway it's worth a listen if you have time. This isn't how these things should go and shows there is a little more than meets the eye here. Even if citizens perfectly execute democracy, these things may not budge. And there is a larger net of protection keeping these in place.
- alhirzel 3mo ago
  Didn't know about sunshine request - the website[1] - until I searched for this term! [1]: https://www.sunshinerequest.com/ https://www.sunshinerequest.com/
  - smalltorch 3mo ago
    Im not sure if there is a way to verify that the one he is talking about, but for public records request muckrock is great. https://www.muckrock.com https://www.muckrock.com
    - toomuchtodo 3mo ago
      MuckRock is the gold standard for systematizing FOIA requests imho.
    - alhirzel 3mo ago
      Thank you for sharing this!
  - tptacek 3mo ago
    This is just FOIA. You don't need any special website or process; just Google [(your state) FOIA] or [(your municipality) FOIA officer]. In Illinois, you can simply email free-form requests for documents and start a 10-day clock on the public body's side.
    - alright2565 3mo ago
      The problem is following up. It's hard to understand the process, and what to do when the public body doesn't respond. If nothing else, the Sunshine Request site is a good place to get form emails for these requests from.
      - chaps 3mo ago
        What you do is: you sue. On my 13th FOIA lawsuit and I have a couple more in the works ;) Depending on where you're from, it's pretty easy to find a pro bono attorney. In Illinois, the plaintiff's attorneys recoup their costs on a successful win.
ryukoposting 3mo ago
> I'm curious how they could prevent taking them down if the local gov doesn't renew the contract? IANAL but based on the facts available to me, they can't. It's a sham held up by intimidating local officials. The cameras were installed on public property, that's that. If they somehow keep this nonsense running for very long, I'd anticipate a Meigs Field-esque incident at some point.
- chasd00 3mo ago
  If the cameras and poles are private property then, contract or not, taking them is theft is it not? You'll get in trouble taking lime scooters and throwing them in the lake regardless of whatever contract exists or doesn't exist.
  - deleted 3mo ago
    [deleted]
  - ryukoposting 3mo ago
    The cameras and poles are private equipment installed on public property. If the city terminates the contract and says "get rid of it" and the contractor says "no," well someone has to deal with it. Imagine if a power company got cleared to bury a bunch of power lines, but they left all the unused poles in the ground, on land they no longer have rights to. That's closer to the situation we're dealing with here. Wireless and solar make some of the more visceral approaches to this problem ineffective. In the past, the city could have strongarmed Flock by severing power or data service somewhere on the public side. I'd bet there are still tons of tricks LA can pull, though. These 1000 9-square foot patches of land have been rezoned as green space, we're clearing it for native plant life. Or, like I said, just pull a Daley and remove them. The city owns the land. Flock can complain, they can sue, and they might even win. But once the city removes the cameras, Flock can't put them back. The city owns the land, and Flock has no rights to it.
adolph 3mo ago
> installed under some works dept land/pole/utility access permits Another option might be right of way or easement permitting, similar to how utility poles and such are regulated as private property with an allowance to be in a public space. If the provider got a permit to use the right of way separate from the contract, then the provider would retain the same right to be there as any other infrastructure.

bmau5 3mo ago

If Flock can put them up, can I/my city just decide to put signs or lasers in front of the cameras?

drdaeman 3mo ago
Or just cut the power?
- nerdsniper 3mo ago
  They have little solar panels.
  - rconti 3mo ago
    plastic bag!
    - drdaeman 3mo ago
      Eww, plastic. A bird feeder right above the camera would do the trick just fine. Flock doesn’t own the pole, right?
butlike 3mo ago
There's instagram stories of people riding around destroying them, so yes, it's possible.

tptacek 3mo ago

You can definitely take the cameras down. We did, there was zero drama. On the other hand, it wouldn't be surprising if a single county commissioner got in trouble for just deciding by fiat to take civic infrastructure down himself. That's not a power county commissioners have. Was there a county board vote authorizing that action?

smalltorch 3mo ago
In this case, law enforcement selectively enforced local laws. So the commissioner exhausted his options. And flock didn't seem to be bothered by breaking the local laws and their action was inaction. So what else are you suppose to do? I think it's reasonable to decide that if no one is enforcing the new local law, that it may be the commissioners purview and authority to enforce after exhausting all his options. Charging the commissioner with felony theft is clearly just bullying at that point.
- kevin_thibedeau 3mo ago
  > So what else are you suppose to do? File a civil suit and get a court order for their removal.
  - smalltorch 3mo ago
    Silliness. Who enforces it then? The local law banning it was already equally as valid as a court order would have been. Would the county need to ask the judge to take it down? Someone has to physically take it down and I'm guessing flock didn't put that in the budget.
    - tptacek 3mo ago
      The court enforces it. We're getting into movie plot politics here. The sheriff's department will not in fact ignore a district court ruling. These scenarios rapidly reach the point where the sheriff is removed from office and imprisoned for some amount of time. This is what happened to Joe Arpaio. This is much simpler in a municipality: the board simply fires the village manager and the chief. A sheriff is usually an elected though. Before you reach the point of suing, you cancel contracts, payments, IT infrastructure, and have public works remove the cameras from any county-owned infrastructure. I mean, all this is pretty silly, though, because what you really do is just turn the cameras off.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]