Here’s Hoping This Takes Them Down

A judge has ruled that the output from Flock spy cameras are public records which must be made available to the public.

Hopefully this will turn over rocks and to see the corruption beneath. 

A judge in Washington has ruled that police images taken by Flock’s AI license plate-scanning cameras are public records that can be requested as part of normal public records requests. The decision highlights the sheer volume of the technology-fueled surveillance state in the United States, and shows that at least in some cases, police cannot withhold the data collected by its surveillance systems.

In a ruling last week, Judge Elizabeth Neidzwski ruled that “the Flock images generated by the Flock cameras located in Stanwood and Sedro-Wooley [Washington] are public records under the Washington State Public Records Act,” that they are “not exempt from disclosure,” and that “an agency does not have to possess a record for that record to be subject to the Public Records Act.”

She further found that “Flock camera images are created and used to further a governmental purpose” and that the images on them are public records because they were paid for by taxpayers. Despite this, the records that were requested as part of the case will not be released because the city automatically deleted them after 30 days. Local media in Washington first reported on the case; 404 Media bought Washington State court records to report the specifics of the case in more detail.

Flock’s automated license plate reader (ALPR) cameras are used in thousands of communities around the United States. They passively take between six and 12 timestamped images of each car that passes by, allowing the company to make a detailed database of where certain cars (and by extension, people) are driving in those communities. 404 Media has reported extensively on Flock, and has highlighted that its cameras have been accessed by the Department of Homeland Security and by local police working with DHS on immigration cases. Last month, cops in Colorado used data from Flock cameras to incorrectly accuse an innocent woman of theft based on her car’s movements.

………

The case highlights the lengths that police departments and cities are willing to go to in order to prevent the release of what they incorrectly perceive to be private information owned by their surveillance vendors (in this case, Flock). Stanwood’s attorneys first argued that the records were Flock’s, not the city’s, which is clearly contradicted in the contract, which states “customer [Stanwood] shall retain whatever legally cognizable right, title, and interest in Customer Generated Data … Flock does not own and shall not sell Customer Generated Data.” The attorneys then argued that images taken by Flock cameras do not become requestable data until it is directly accessed and downloaded by the police on Flock’s customer portal: “the data existing in the cloud system … does not exist anywhere in the City’s files as a record.” The city’s lawyers also argued that Flock footage is police “intelligence information” that should be exempt from public records requests, and that “there are privacy concerns with making ALPR data accessible to the public.”

The degree to which the state security apparatus is using private vendors to conceal theoir violations of our privacy is truly appalling.