[randusername]

We had success in our county and town canceling contracts, but that doesn't mean they are banned from private land.

I'm not totally sure, but it may even be the stupidest of all possible outcomes: they still exist, the cops can't access them, and their only value is selling private information.

[infecto]

But the cops can access the private land cameras. I would wager most small to conglomerate level business opt-in.

Last I checked the Lowes and Walmarts of the US share this data as its locks down shoplifters quicker.

[tptacek]

Police cannot access privately-owned Flock cameras unless the owners authorize them to do so, or a court orders it (in the same sense that a court can order access to any information on any device).

[infecto]

Yes that is what I said. Most private owners opt in to this data sharing arrangement. Keep in mind some of the largest deployments are with big box stores and retail property owners.

[15155]

> But the cops can access the private land cameras.

Not for free, they can't. Flock isn't a charity. So your local cops can't get the data, but others can.

[infecto]

Hmm when I was in discussion with a couple different flock deployments that’s not how the arrangement works. The customer (not the police), the entity paying for the camera can opt in to sharing the data with local police. Under that arrangement the police did not pay for anything. Now certainly cities and police agencies may have their own deployment but the camera is the product the feature benefit is the data share. Maybe it’s change since I last was looking at it.