I would guess the only way to make this data available long term is by regulation. Then again, I would hope Flock is subject to FOIA already if they are collaborating with state or local law enforcement...

▲

greyface- 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Washington State just exempted Flock data from its public records law. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=6002&year=2025...

	▲	functionmouse 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		that's craaazy

▲

wahnfrieden 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

YC CEO funded Flock and is involved in politics to remove police regulations

To quote him responding to criticism against Flock: "You're thinking Chinese surveillance. US-based surveillance helps victims and prevents more victims."

▲

echelon 10 hours ago | parent [-]

Cameras are free speech and are a shield against property crimes and assault.

Our building complex has rampant break-ins. We've needed more cameras for years and we're only now starting to add them.

Worse, someone recently someone set fire to the roof which caused a 12-hour long debacle. Not sure what the "#-of-alarms fire" ranking it was, but several people lost their homes to months of remediation and they tore apart the roof.

Cameras would have implicated the contractor responsible (we know it was a contractor, but there were no cameras or access logs).

One theory as to why the number of violent crimes is going down in this country isn't that we just de-leaded the water and taught better conflict de-escalation, but that there are cameras and smartphones everywhere.

All of that said - camera networks in the hands of an all-powerful state are bad.

The state does not need access to these systems outside of a rigorously documented system with proper judicial oversight. We need regulations and even civil liberties that limit the scope of state access and state dragnets to these camera networks.

But individuals, companies, and communities should be at liberty to hire surveillance tech to protect their persons and their property.

▲

mossTechnician 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Cameras are free speech... individuals, companies, and communities should be at liberty to hire surveillance tech to protect their persons and their property.

At scale, corporate surveillance can effectively intermingle with, and/or become indistinguishable from, state surveillance. We see that happening today: why wiretap when Palantir exists?

Cameras may be speech, but surveillance has a chilling effect against it.

▲

tfrancisl 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think this is a false dichotomy. You can feel and be more protected against crime while also being exploited for your data by a shadowy camera company. We should let the state step in to regulate Flock et al, assuming we can do something about the corruption they're already involved in.

▲

malfist 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Pray tell, what speech do cameras make?

▲

throwawaytea 9 hours ago | parent [-]

The same one that I make when I stand somewhere and describe what I see. So I hold a camera to do it more accurately. And then I get tired so I mount the camera on a trip setup instead.

▲

malfist 9 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm still not hearing any speech from the camera doing the recording. Can you tell me specifically, how recording with a camera is speech?

	▲	greyface- 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		ACLU of IL v. Alvarez (2012): "The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording."
	▲	mrala 9 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		What is your definition of speech? It seems like you are defining it literally.
	▲	echelon 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		My recording of police interactions is free speech, for example. My recording my property is free speech. My taking a camera into public spaces and recording is free speech.

▲

hypeatei 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> I would hope Flock is subject to FOIA

Isn't FOIA only applicable to federal government agencies?

	▲	Spooky23 10 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Most states have a version of it.
	▲	tfrancisl 10 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This is true. I often forget because my state has an equivalent law.

▲

mrhottakes 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

FOIA does not apply outside government entities. Maybe you can get the data from the entity itself, but good luck.

	▲	gwerbin 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Which is one of many reasons why privatizing government services probably isn't a good idea. You could also make different laws but that's probably not going to happen. Think about just about any of the important laws that we rely on for a stable and just society in the USA, and consider that most or all of them would be politically unviable if they didn't already exist. Including FOIA itself. Not a good situation.