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.
Such records shouldn't exist in the first place. I agree they shouldn't be exempt if they do, but let's not just accept that it's okay to have a fleet of cameras recording us 24/7 everywhere we go, managed by a private entity, accessed freely and without any probable cause by local and federal agencies who don't even communicate with each other.
It was argued that making the Flock data public violated everyone's privacy. It's important to stress and remind everyone the privacy violation occurred the moment pictures are indiscriminately taken, processed by AI, and stored for every single car that passes by. Not to mention family homes, pedestrians, and other things being captured in the process.
We are only a couple steps away from doing the same thing for pedestrians. Why not just take pictures of every single person walking by now? This already happens in some places. Flock is paving the way to make it a government sanctioned mass surveillance program.
Not quibbling, but preservation and production of these records has really minimal connection to the public purpose behind sunshine laws. It reveals the fact of suspicionless mass surveillance, but the monitoring is not of or about government functions. Clearly the drafters of a law were not imaginative enough to foresee the dystopian turn government has taken, but let’s face it: if someone put that surveillance camera in the courthouse, which is more connected to public sunshine, the analysis might have gone differently.
Sounds more like an argument against the cameras at all, which in turn is an argument for keeping the footage public; as hard as it is to get most people to care about surveillance, hiding the recordings would only make it harder. Any remote possibility of something like this eventually is going to start with people being uncomfortable with it, and that's not going to happen if we aren't forced to confront the full implications of it.
Plus, there's the usual concerns of how easy it is to craft narratives by showing only bits and pieces of what happened. If law enforcement is going to be using this footage as evidence for arrests, it's definitely better that that people can have their lawyers review the public record for footage that might paint things in a different light. Sure, prosecutors should theoretically be required to share potentially exculpatory evidence with the defense, but there's no shortage of known instances where that didn't happen, and the system should not be set to to make the availability of information even more unbalanced than it already is
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".
Drone, paint can, mud, or a very heavy hat. Until they're made too expensive to maintain, they'll stay in business selling your movements to data brokers, police, intelligence agencies, stalkers, thieves, and/or scammers to mine for all time for any reason at all.
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.
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.
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...
In addition to the potential for agreements about sharing info from the server side that the sibling comment points out, there's also presumably nothing stopping the owners of the private cameras from voluntarily sharing footage with law enforcement. It's not completely implausible that the owners have them up to be able to defend against false allegations about what might have occurred in view of the cameras, but this doesn't seem nearly as likely a motivation as physical security, and barring them having some sort of private security force that they feel confident in dealing with any incidents they're unhappy with, the intent is probably to sometimes share footage with the cops.
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.
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.
Ah, and there it is. Why shouldn't Y-Combinator be a force for evil like the rest of them? Paul Graham has been off his rocker for about as long as I can remember now, unfortunately my memories of people like this doing anything good for the world are so far in the past, they're fading. What a shame.
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.
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".
Some may argue the collected public driving information is too dangerous/sensitive to be available under the PRA... But in that case it's ALSO too dangerous/sensitive for them to be aggregating it uncontrolled in the first place.
So I see this as a good ruling: While I don't want my driving data public, I'd rather everyone's be equally public, rather than allowing shady and unaccountable forces to decide who "deserves" privacy and who doesn't.
In other words, if Elon Musk or Local Town Mayor can surveil my daily drives, I should be able to see theirs too.
____
Aside: Imagine a journalistic cooperative that uses similar cameras to record all traffic at the driveways of the rich/politicians, airports, luxury hotels and resorts, etc.
Magically, legislators will acquire opinions against such systems... though not necessarily honest or evenhanded ones, that'll still be a problem.
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.
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.
For the more specific part that the PD states it does not physically save the data locally, I do work with cities Police departments and Flock will integrate with the local record management system.
I suspect they probably do have the data locally integrated (at least for the time period the state allows them to retain the records). But even if they do not, many police departments that would not be an excuse (although you need to request fast, many states only retain for 30 days or less now).
> 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.
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.
Not sure what country you live in, but my guess would be that your country hasn't made the same kind of noises about how wide-ranging GDPR enforcement actions can be.
Personally I don't know about non-EU/UK countries with GDPR-style (or stronger) laws, so if I were operating a website that needed GDPR compliance (and decided to instead block visitors from the EU/UK), I probably would have no idea about needing to do something about visitors from your country.
So I expect their "true reasoning" is just ignorance.
South Korea - I was there until very recently. Feel free to look up the privacy laws, they're basically GDPR with extra cherries on top and a chocolate flake. Never got blocked by any of the websites called out here for blocking EU IPs on GDPR grounds.
One thing that shocked me is how pervasive flock is. Major US cities have hundreds if not thousands of flock cameras https://deflock.me/map.
I truly believe that technology like this, implemented in the way that it is, is incredibly dangerous. They are creating a nationwide spynet, selling everyone's information, and lying about this fact. Both sides of the political isle will inevitably abuse this power. It needs to be pushed back against strongly now and forever more. I encourage people to show up to city council meetings if adding flock to your city is on the agenda. And if it is already in your city then the contract will need to be renewed at some point and you can contest it then. Emailing your representatives is not always effective, but if thousands of people do so then it does start making a dent.
Denver town hall where multiple sources of flock lying and deceiving the government and the people are brought up:
https://youtu.be/OR_qolqQ2fM
Terrible ruling. We need these cameras to efficiently deal with crime. Otherwise how do you investigate and actually find suspects? It takes enormous resources and cities often don’t have the resources. The data should only be accessed by authorities with warrants. But making it subject to public access risks everyone’s safety. For example stalkers could use that data.
I understand the risks of mass surveillance but we don’t live in a dystopia. We can require certain process for public agencies to have access to the data (like court approved warrants or imminent harm or whatever) and keep it otherwise private. Just like some other information deemed confidential isn’t subject to transparency laws.
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?
> 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.
A somewhat-milder equivalent would be a law that requires you to have a personal ID number visibly affixed to both your front and back at all times outdoors.
Sure, it's tradition, but license-plates started being required over a hundred years ago and the tradeoffs and dangers were not the same.
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.
Such records shouldn't exist in the first place. I agree they shouldn't be exempt if they do, but let's not just accept that it's okay to have a fleet of cameras recording us 24/7 everywhere we go, managed by a private entity, accessed freely and without any probable cause by local and federal agencies who don't even communicate with each other.
It was argued that making the Flock data public violated everyone's privacy. It's important to stress and remind everyone the privacy violation occurred the moment pictures are indiscriminately taken, processed by AI, and stored for every single car that passes by. Not to mention family homes, pedestrians, and other things being captured in the process.
We are only a couple steps away from doing the same thing for pedestrians. Why not just take pictures of every single person walking by now? This already happens in some places. Flock is paving the way to make it a government sanctioned mass surveillance program.
> Such records shouldn't exist in the first place.
Oh I agree 100%
In a country with stronger privacy this would be law.
> Good, such records shouldn't be exempt.
Absolutely. Govs fight transparency to hide their actions - ultimately so they can avoid accountability.
Reminds me of the "ag gag laws" that prohibit photography/filming of the conditions of animals and their treatment on "factory farms":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
If this weren't the case, any agency could just hire a 3rd party to prepare anything they wanted to avoid being subject to public scrutiny.
Not quibbling, but preservation and production of these records has really minimal connection to the public purpose behind sunshine laws. It reveals the fact of suspicionless mass surveillance, but the monitoring is not of or about government functions. Clearly the drafters of a law were not imaginative enough to foresee the dystopian turn government has taken, but let’s face it: if someone put that surveillance camera in the courthouse, which is more connected to public sunshine, the analysis might have gone differently.
Sounds more like an argument against the cameras at all, which in turn is an argument for keeping the footage public; as hard as it is to get most people to care about surveillance, hiding the recordings would only make it harder. Any remote possibility of something like this eventually is going to start with people being uncomfortable with it, and that's not going to happen if we aren't forced to confront the full implications of it.
Plus, there's the usual concerns of how easy it is to craft narratives by showing only bits and pieces of what happened. If law enforcement is going to be using this footage as evidence for arrests, it's definitely better that that people can have their lawyers review the public record for footage that might paint things in a different light. Sure, prosecutors should theoretically be required to share potentially exculpatory evidence with the defense, but there's no shortage of known instances where that didn't happen, and the system should not be set to to make the availability of information even more unbalanced than it already is
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".
Drone, paint can, mud, or a very heavy hat. Until they're made too expensive to maintain, they'll stay in business selling your movements to data brokers, police, intelligence agencies, stalkers, thieves, and/or scammers to mine for all time for any reason at all.
” brokers, police, intelligence agencies, stalkers, thieves, and/or scammers”
Why use the full name? They are known as Palantir.
[dead]
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.
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.
I was wondering if Flock shares the private-contract camera data with law enforcement.
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...
In addition to the potential for agreements about sharing info from the server side that the sibling comment points out, there's also presumably nothing stopping the owners of the private cameras from voluntarily sharing footage with law enforcement. It's not completely implausible that the owners have them up to be able to defend against false allegations about what might have occurred in view of the cameras, but this doesn't seem nearly as likely a motivation as physical security, and barring them having some sort of private security force that they feel confident in dealing with any incidents they're unhappy with, the intent is probably to sometimes share footage with the cops.
https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/08/us/melodee-buzzard-missing-se...
How was all of this data gathered without being a violation?
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.
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.
> YC S17
Ahh that year was somewhere between blockchain and ai - no surprise they would default back to surveillance capitalism, go with what you know.
I know it's sarcasm but to be pedantic, '17 was very much part of peak blockchain so they didn't need that kind of excuse.
> Flock (YC S17)
Ah, and there it is. Why shouldn't Y-Combinator be a force for evil like the rest of them? Paul Graham has been off his rocker for about as long as I can remember now, unfortunately my memories of people like this doing anything good for the world are so far in the past, they're fading. What a shame.
"Why shouldn't Y-Combinator be a force for evil like the rest of them?"
We should figure out a way to hold YC accountable for their helping these companies screw our rights and privacy.
I don’t know where this idea that YC is supposed to be an ethical investor comes from. It’s certainly not in their principles:
https://www.ycombinator.com/principles/
> We should figure out a way to hold YC accountable for their helping these companies screw our rights and privacy.
Good thoughts like these are why I’m sort of surprised they still run HN on such an obviously, directly, unambiguously attributable domain name.
The watering hole effect, perhaps.
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.
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".
Some may argue the collected public driving information is too dangerous/sensitive to be available under the PRA... But in that case it's ALSO too dangerous/sensitive for them to be aggregating it uncontrolled in the first place.
So I see this as a good ruling: While I don't want my driving data public, I'd rather everyone's be equally public, rather than allowing shady and unaccountable forces to decide who "deserves" privacy and who doesn't.
In other words, if Elon Musk or Local Town Mayor can surveil my daily drives, I should be able to see theirs too.
____
Aside: Imagine a journalistic cooperative that uses similar cameras to record all traffic at the driveways of the rich/politicians, airports, luxury hotels and resorts, etc.
Magically, legislators will acquire opinions against such systems... though not necessarily honest or evenhanded ones, that'll still be a problem.
Full title too long for HN: Court denies request that it find Flock Safety camera data is exempt from Public Records Act
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.
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.
For the more specific part that the PD states it does not physically save the data locally, I do work with cities Police departments and Flock will integrate with the local record management system.
I suspect they probably do have the data locally integrated (at least for the time period the state allows them to retain the records). But even if they do not, many police departments that would not be an excuse (although you need to request fast, many states only retain for 30 days or less now).
> 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.
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.
Not sure what country you live in, but my guess would be that your country hasn't made the same kind of noises about how wide-ranging GDPR enforcement actions can be.
Personally I don't know about non-EU/UK countries with GDPR-style (or stronger) laws, so if I were operating a website that needed GDPR compliance (and decided to instead block visitors from the EU/UK), I probably would have no idea about needing to do something about visitors from your country.
So I expect their "true reasoning" is just ignorance.
From which country are you connecting?
South Korea - I was there until very recently. Feel free to look up the privacy laws, they're basically GDPR with extra cherries on top and a chocolate flake. Never got blocked by any of the websites called out here for blocking EU IPs on GDPR grounds.
Has South Korea fined any foreign companies a billion dollars for violating their privacy laws? I have a feeling that may be the difference.
seriously, what would their true reasoning be
"It's your country's fault for making us not track you."
No paywall article.
https://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exemp...
Thanks, that is better.
Also:
Redmond temporarily suspends use of Flock cameras - https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/redmond-police-depa...
with a better headline: "Judge denies request to exempt Flock footage from Public Records Act"
This is just step 1 of many. The lawyers at Fluck will appeal. I know what I typed.
One thing that shocked me is how pervasive flock is. Major US cities have hundreds if not thousands of flock cameras https://deflock.me/map.
I truly believe that technology like this, implemented in the way that it is, is incredibly dangerous. They are creating a nationwide spynet, selling everyone's information, and lying about this fact. Both sides of the political isle will inevitably abuse this power. It needs to be pushed back against strongly now and forever more. I encourage people to show up to city council meetings if adding flock to your city is on the agenda. And if it is already in your city then the contract will need to be renewed at some point and you can contest it then. Emailing your representatives is not always effective, but if thousands of people do so then it does start making a dent.
Denver town hall where multiple sources of flock lying and deceiving the government and the people are brought up: https://youtu.be/OR_qolqQ2fM
Another thing also makes a dent: destroy the cameras where you see them.
Terrible ruling. We need these cameras to efficiently deal with crime. Otherwise how do you investigate and actually find suspects? It takes enormous resources and cities often don’t have the resources. The data should only be accessed by authorities with warrants. But making it subject to public access risks everyone’s safety. For example stalkers could use that data.
I understand the risks of mass surveillance but we don’t live in a dystopia. We can require certain process for public agencies to have access to the data (like court approved warrants or imminent harm or whatever) and keep it otherwise private. Just like some other information deemed confidential isn’t subject to transparency laws.
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...
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.
Sources?
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...
> 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?
> 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.
Would you accept the government require you to wear a private company's gps tracker whenever you are in public?
A somewhat-milder equivalent would be a law that requires you to have a personal ID number visibly affixed to both your front and back at all times outdoors.
Sure, it's tradition, but license-plates started being required over a hundred years ago and the tradeoffs and dangers were not the same.