[ldoughty]

But the data collected is property of the government and flock is not allowed to use that data for additional business gain (according to their statements)...

So they can't sell the fact that you're at Target at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday to anybody... Nor build profiles to sell to advertisers... And if that's the case that's very similar to cloud storage vendors.

If I access hacker news, and the record of my visit is stored in an AWS S3 bucket, I can't submit to AWS to delete my visitor record, even though the server, network cards, wires, and storage medium are AWS property, it was hacker news' website that generated that record and their responsibility to take my request to delete it.. AWS' stance would rightly be "talk to the website operator for CCPA requests"

[valeriozen]

The AWS analogy breaks down because AWS doesn't encourage customers to pool their S3 buckets into a nationwide searchable index.

Flock operates a federated network. If you drive past an unmarked camera, you have absolutely no way of knowing which specific HOA or town leased it so how are you realistically supposed to know who the "data controller" is to send your ccpa or deletion request to?

[giancarlostoro]

Start standing in front of the cameras looking sketchy long enough till police are sent out to ya, then ask the cop who called.

[chaps]

Someone once dropped some fireworks not too far from me at 3am a few years back. They were loud and, yeah, cops were called. A few minutes later about five cars drive past me about 30mph over the limit. Not sure how they didn't see me or try to see me. But I know they didn't catch the BRIGHT orange and lifted care.

Me being me, I submitted a FOIA request for the dashcam footage of the five cop cars and the dispatch logs.

Instead of pulling over the easily identifiable car, they pulled over some random guy. They were behind him the whole time but five cop cars pulled behind him thinking that he fired a gun a few minutes back.

He was let go without a citation, but the official reason, despite being paired with the dispatch for the firecracker, was a broken headlamp.

[giancarlostoro]

I may or may not know a business owner who got criminals off their business' street by saying he thinks he saw a gun any time criminals showed up to do things, everything from prostitution to selling drugs. Cops showed up immediately. They stopped coming by altogether, probably the safest street in quite a rough part of town.

It's crazy how cops just rush to very specific and nuanced crimes. Someone likely said they heard gun shots, and then they scrambled to find them.

[hrimfaxi]

> It's crazy how cops just rush to very specific and nuanced crimes. Someone likely said they heard gun shots, and then they scrambled to find them.

Is it crazy? Shouldn't the response be proportional?

[giancarlostoro]

Contrast to someone being shot dead, if the killer drives away, they might be there half an hour later.

[Forgeties79]

The police should do a lot of things they fail to do.

[fwipsy]

Police prioritizing responses to violent crimes where lives may in danger seems reasonable to me.

[jnovek]

I don’t care. I don’t care who owns the data. If I can’t easily get private information like my movements removed from a database like this, the legislation does not sufficiently protect me.

It should absolutely be Flock’s responsibility to remove my data and we should absolutely require it by law. Full stop.

[_DeadFred_]

The legal term is 'distinction without a difference'. Flock/others can't create a weaselly scenario to pretend it's something else. Otherwise people could bypass all kinds of laws/rules just by giving some weaselly description to everything.

This also falls under the 2026 rule 'everyone Is 12 Now'. Flock is literally acting like a 12 year old to get out of following the rules. My 12 year old tried to use this dumb parsing of things to avoid rules/consequences.

[rjmunro]

The problem with this is where do you draw the line? If I film you with my iPhone (e.g. you walk past in the background of my video), Apple should delete my video from my phone and iCloud account based only on your instructions?

Apple hold the data in iCloud, Apple (or a phone network) may be leasing me the phone. That sounds pretty similar to the Flock situation.

I guess the difference is that flock might be sharing the data from a customers camera with other customers. Then they are definitely controlling it.

I think the bigger problem with Flock is the fact that their cyber security is so laughably bad that non-customers can easily access the data.

[psychoslave]

Not pronouncing about what path is the most distopic, just for the fun of the exercise of what if we push in the direction:

Given the rule, I would expect (IANAL), Apple should not deal with data stored on phones they sold.

People are responsible for what they store on their device. When I take a photo in the street, if someone come to me asking to erase a photo with them or their kids as they were in the background, I'll tell I don't publish any photo online, which is generally what people are thinking of as a concern and that stop there, but if they insist I will remove it from my phone. Because I'm too lazy to actually live edit the photo and remove them from the picture, even if that is certainly doable with a simple prompt by now.

Now if Apple store automatically photo in some remote server they own, they are the ones who should be responsible to comply with making sure they won't store something illegally. Microsoft, Google, and Apple use PhotoDNA to detect known CSAM if I'm not mistaken. Though legally they only should remove once they get a notice about it. Same way, they could proactively blur visages of people not detected as the people that were whitelisted for the uploading account. And, by that logic, they should certainly remove the information regarding a person if they get a notice, just as well as they wouldn't keep CSAM data once notified, would they?

Anyway the underlying issue is not who store what, but what societies lose at letting mass surveillance infrastructures being deployed, no matter how the ownership/responsibility dilution game is played on top of it.

[jnovek]

Are you using your phone photographs to track my movements? I don't care about the photographs part, I care about the "collecting data that can track my movements" part.

I don't mean my movements on the internet either. I understand that those things are easy to track. I mean in real life.

As far as responsibility for the data goes, you're right, it's not clear. Therefore, anyone who uses the data -- Flock or their customer -- should be required to delete it on my request.

That seems like a pretty clear delineation, no?

[cute_boi]

If apple collects all the data and track movement then yes, they should be liable.

[lazide]

A reasonably nuanced defense could likely claim that to be able to do what you want, would have much worse side effects on privacy.

For example, would you want to be able to tell Public Storage (or some other storage unit place) to remove any naked photos of you stored anywhere in their storage units?

For them to actually be able to do that would require they have nigh omniscience on everything stored by/for everyone in every one of their storage units. Even inside closed boxes.

Now, it's not the same thing of course - but hopefully you understand what I'm referring to?

[LadyCailin]

Except that the analogy is that they already have, or can easily create, that list. If they couldn’t, their value proposition would be lame. “We know you’re looking for a specific license plate, here’s a million hours of footage from all over the city, have at looking through it all.”

[lazide]

Only for paying customers, which you aren't of course. If those customers paid public storage to inventory their stuff, then that inventory is their property. Surely it would be inappropriate to use their inventory data to find your naked photos. A violation of privacy even. (/s, kinda)

I was enumerating the likely defense, not that it's valid.

[shakna]

"Existing capability" removes the argument against onerous requirements, in a legal setting.

[tptacek]

The law cares about lots of things we don't care about.

[jnovek]

The law is there to serve society. If it is not effectively serving society, it should be changed.

[tptacek]

This is also true according to their contracts (we were one of the first munis in the country to ostentatiously cancel our Flock contract, and the lead up to that was a bunch of progressive legal experts poring over that contract looking for holes.)

[fsckboy]

>a bunch of progressive legal experts poring over that contract looking for holes

all attorneys represent their clients; your attorney does not have to share your opinion of the law or public policy, they can still interpret what the law means to you.

if you are afraid your attorney might have a bias (they are human) you may get better advice from the "misaligned" POV: the flaws/holes in a privacy law found by a pro-business conservative attorney are more likely to find sympathy in the courts from both fellow conservatives and progressive judges.

[shermantanktop]

As a practical matter, this may be good advice. But it also places a demand on someone with a legitimate concern that they go find an ideological "beard" to make themselves more palatable and sympathetic.

It's not hard to see how this enables an institution to gate itself from criticism.

[thaumaturgy]

Except that Flock very clearly benefits financially from having direct access to this data: owning (and in their own documentation, they very clearly do own it) a network of 80,000 surveillance devices across the country, and owning every single transit point for the data they collect, is what gets them to a $7.5 billion valuation from investors.

The fact of the matter is that Flock is playing two-step with the concept of "ownership" of data. They disclaim ownership as a way to leave local agencies holding the bag for liabilities, but they fight tenaciously to retain complete and unfettered access to that data.

(After organizing a community group that won Flock contract cancellations in multiple jurisdictions in Oregon, I went on to coauthor state legislation regulating ALPRs. I am very well familiar with all the dirty ball they play.)

Also, Flock's cameras collect more data than is provided to police agencies. Who owns that data, I wonder?

[necovek]

That makes them a data broker in my reading, and at least in California, Data Broker legislation should apply. CA Data Broker registry gives me access denied, but that could be because I am outside US.

[ScoobleDoodle]

I looked it up at https://cppa.ca.gov/data_broker_registry/ and didn't find Flock / Flock Safety in that list of the currently registered 566 data brokers.

[tptacek]

Because Flock isn't a data broker. Flock's customers own their data, not Flock, and they use Flock's platform voluntarily to share data with other customers.

[tadfisher]

Flock charges to access the data which is voluntarily shared by other customers. I am struggling to note a difference in this practice from any other data brokerage service in existence.

Does Flock do some kind of P2P dance to avoid the data transiting their systems?

[rjmunro]

Legally how does it work if I upload a file to Google Docs and then share it with my contacts? Is Google then a data brokerage for my files?

[close04]

So… Flock uses their own platform and top to bottom tech stack to do everything technically? Your local PD doesn’t use random cameras (like Reolink), doesn’t run a custom software stack (like Frigate in a container on some random VM hosted with AWS), doesn’t store the data wherever (like Backblaze)? The customers just have to install the Flock cameras and “order” the subsequent data from Flock? But you say they’re not at all responsible or accountable for any it because despite doing everything at every step, they’re “just a broker”?

[necovek]

I was referring to the claim that "Flock's cameras collect more data than is provided to police agencies" — that suggests that there is data not "owned" by the customers, which implies it's Flock's data, thus it might make them liable under Data Broker legislation.

[unethical_ban]

If Flock's customers, using Flock's infrastructure or tooling, can share data with each other, that would be bad.

I'm not saying that's what's happening, but that's what I thought was happening before reading this thread, and now I have to go and run through their policies.

Either way ALPRs and AI-facial scanners in public are a huge violation of privacy and I loathe them, but I hope it's correct that Flock customers cannot easily share information with one another.

[FireBeyond]

> If Flock's customers, using Flock's infrastructure or tooling, can share data with each other, that would be bad.

Ex-employee of Flock here, that's ABSOLUTELY what's happening.

And what's more Flock lets them do so even when they know the agencies are legally not permitted to do so. They turn a blind eye, say it's not their problem to enforce ("oh, doing so in state X is illegal? Well, even if your agency is in state X, we didn't disable that feature"), then happily provide training to do enable those agencies to do so (and it's a nudge nudge wink wink part of the sales process.)

[gowld]

That's absolutely what is happening.

https://www.courthousenews.com/california-drivers-accuse-flo...

[tptacek]

Sharing data between customers is a large part of the point of the product.

[cwillu]

Equivocation. My stock broker doesn't own my stocks either, they merely hold my assets in a brokerage account.

[tptacek]

I encourage you to present that analogy to an actual court and see how far it gets you. It's very easy to find the statutory definition of a "data broker" under California law.

This is what I mean by the fruitlessness of these kinds of legal discussions on HN. What do you want me to argue, that you're wrong to want the law to work that way?

[FarmerPotato]

Technically, most stocks are registered in the name of a securities holding company, with you named as beneficial owner. That makes it frictionless for you to buy and sell. You enjoy all the rights of ownership, unless the broker lends your shares out to someone else.

You _can_ get shares registered in your name.

[jaredwiener]

And you would (rightfully) be angered if your stock broker sold your shares and pocketed the proceeds, because you own them.

[marcus_holmes]

> But the data collected is property of the government

I thought this was the get-out clause from the constitutional problems with Flock? That because Flock is a non-government organisation it isn't restricted by the constitution (i.e. the constitution only restricts what the government can do).

They can't have it both ways - if Flock are collecting the data then they are subject to the privacy laws. If it's the government collecting the data via Flock as just a service, then they are subject to constitutional restrictions.

[unethical_ban]

This is worth validating independently, but to be clear:

Are you saying Flock itself does not have access to any of the data, and that the data they store on behalf of local governments is not fed into any central datalake? That every organization's data is completely, unalterably separate from everyone else's?

If so, that makes the panopticon slightly less powerful.

[gorgoiler]

That’s a pretty compelling argument, but what if I went round to AWS’ house, peeked into their kitchen, and saw a crate of photos on their table with me in them?

I’d absolutely say:

“Hey, that’s me! Give me those right now!”

I’d also be pretty angry if they told me:

“Sorry we’re storing those for Corp Inc. Go ask them.”

To refute my own point though, this only sounds annoying because the data processor is being irritating by manually referring me to the data controller. In practice, it would be trivial for them to automatically forward communications between me and the controller.

That’s what feels is amiss with the top level article.

[eagleinparadise]

If I lease out a property to a tenant (apartment, retail, industrial use, whatever) and that tenant is committing an illegal activity on the property. Would the landlord be liable for knowing it? Or not?

"Sorry FBI, the tenant renting my warehouse out to manufacturing cocaine is not my responsibility. I won't do anything about it. You deal with them."

Nope, that's a failure of a duty to act and aiding and abetting a criminal activity if you hace constructive knowledge.

[wavefunction]

I assume they are building "meta-data" profiles of people based on the data they say they can't use directly. That seems like an easy work-around that satisfies the lip-service they've given to the issue.