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.
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.
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.
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".
> 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.
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.
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
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).
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.
15 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 43.4 ms ] threadhttps://www.heraldnet.com/news/judge-denies-request-to-exemp...
How was all of this data gathered without being a violation?
Another non-paywalled article on the case: https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/investigat...
> 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.
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.
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
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).
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.