Most active commenters
  • p_ing(3)

92 points p_ing | 30 comments | | HN request time: 1.152s | source | bottom
1. p_ing ◴[] No.45861832[source]
Full title too long for HN: Court denies request that it find Flock Safety camera data is exempt from Public Records Act
2. CalChris ◴[] No.45862134[source]
No paywall article.

https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exemp...

replies(2): >>45862293 #>>45862648 #
3. exmadscientist ◴[] No.45862140[source]
Anyone 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.
replies(1): >>45862270 #
4. Arrath ◴[] No.45862150[source]
Good, 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.
replies(1): >>45863021 #
5. c420 ◴[] No.45862270[source]
Gonna need to contact the county clerk. Using 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.
6. foundart ◴[] No.45862293[source]
with a better headline: "Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act"
7. jmpman ◴[] No.45862348[source]
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/08/us/melodee-buzzard-missing-se...

How was all of this data gathered without being a violation?

replies(1): >>45862528 #
8. 1970-01-01 ◴[] No.45862432[source]
This is just step 1 of many. The lawyers at Fluck will appeal. I know what I typed.
9. shawn_w ◴[] No.45862526[source]
If 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/investigat...

replies(4): >>45862559 #>>45862786 #>>45863065 #>>45863090 #
10. FireBeyond ◴[] No.45862528[source]
This 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.

replies(2): >>45862814 #>>45863225 #
11. calmbonsai ◴[] No.45862559[source]
Courts 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.

replies(1): >>45862851 #
12. Wistar ◴[] No.45862615[source]
There 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.
replies(2): >>45862663 #>>45862919 #
13. p_ing ◴[] No.45862648[source]
Thanks, that is better.

Also:

Redmond temporarily suspends use of Flock cameras - https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/redmond-police-depa...

14. tptacek ◴[] No.45862663[source]
Those 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.
replies(1): >>45862781 #
15. Wistar ◴[] No.45862781{3}[source]
I was wondering if Flock shares the private-contract camera data with law enforcement.
replies(1): >>45862907 #
16. pilingual ◴[] No.45862786[source]
> 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?

17. RHSeeger ◴[] No.45862814{3}[source]
And, 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.
replies(1): >>45863180 #
18. brookst ◴[] No.45862851{3}[source]
Sources?
replies(1): >>45862901 #
19. carimura ◴[] No.45862860[source]
These 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".
20. pilingual ◴[] No.45862901{4}[source]
The 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

[0] https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69288422/schmidt-v-city...

21. gusgus01 ◴[] No.45862907{4}[source]
It 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-massachus...
22. ◴[] No.45862919[source]
23. WarOnPrivacy ◴[] No.45863021[source]
> Good, such records shouldn't be exempt.

Absolutely. Govs fight transparency to hide their actions - ultimately so they can avoid accountability.

24. 1shooner ◴[] No.45863065[source]
Would you accept the government require you to wear a private company's gps tracker whenever you are in public?
25. Hendrikto ◴[] No.45863084[source]
> 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.

replies(1): >>45863192 #
26. AnthonyMouse ◴[] No.45863090[source]
> If you're out driving on public roads do you really have any expectation of privacy?

Expectation of privacy generally comes from taking steps to preserve it. If you put curtains on your windows, any rando can't install a hidden camera in your house to see what's happening behind them. If you don't install curtains on your windows, any rando can stand in the street and see what they see.

The government prohibits you from concealing the number plate on your car. They can't reasonably prohibit you from doing the thing that would establish an expectation of privacy and then use the fact that you didn't do it to say that you don't have one.

27. FireBeyond ◴[] No.45863180{4}[source]
Yeah, 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".
28. deaux ◴[] No.45863192[source]
Every 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.
29. deaux ◴[] No.45863225{3}[source]
Flock (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.