Comment by tfrancisl
7 hours ago
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...
7 hours ago
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...
Washington State just exempted Flock data from its public records law. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=6002&year=2025...
that's craaazy
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."
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.
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.
> 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.
Pray tell, what speech do cameras make?
5 replies →
> I would hope Flock is subject to FOIA
Isn't FOIA only applicable to federal government agencies?
Most states have a version of it.
This is true. I often forget because my state has an equivalent law.
FOIA does not apply outside government entities. Maybe you can get the data from the entity itself, but good luck.