←back to thread

Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act

(www.goskagit.com)
134 points p_ing | 2 comments | 09 Nov 25 00:53 UTC | HN request time: 0.469s | source
Show context
shawn_w ◴[09 Nov 25 03:02 UTC] 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 #
calmbonsai ◴[09 Nov 25 03:09 UTC] 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 #
1. brookst ◴[09 Nov 25 04:14 UTC] No.45862851[source]▶
Sources?
replies(1): >>45862901 #
2. pilingual ◴[09 Nov 25 04:27 UTC] No.45862901[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...