Richter entscheidet, dass Flock-Überwachungsbilder öffentliche Aufzeichnungen sind, die von jedem angefordert werden können | Ein Richter in Washington sagte, dass von Flock-Kameras aufgenommene Bilder bei Anfragen nach öffentlichen Aufzeichnungen „nicht von der Offenlegung ausgenommen“ seien.

From the article: 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 came in response to a public records request made by Jose Rodriguez, who in April sought all of the images taken by the city’s Flock cameras between the hours of 5 and 6 p.m. on March 30 (he later narrowed this request to only ask for images taken by a single camera in a half-hour period). The city argued that Rodriguez would have to request them directly from Flock, a private company not subject to public records laws. But Flock’s contracts with cities say that the city owns the images taken on their cameras. The city eventually took Rodriguez to court. In the court proceedings, the city made a series of arguments claiming that Flock images couldn’t be released; the judge’s decision rebuked all of these many arguments.

“I wanted the records to see if they would release them to me, in hopes that if they were public records it would raise awareness to all the communities that have the Flock cameras that they may be public record and could be used by stalkers, or burglars scoping out a house, or other ways someone with bad intentions may use them. My goal was to try getting these cameras taken down by the cities that put them up,” Rodriguez told 404 Media. “In order to show that the records were public records and that they don’t qualify as exempt under the Washington public records act we cited the contract, and I made requests to both cities requesting their exterior normal surveillance camera footage from their City Hall and police station that recorded the streets and parking lots with vehicles driving by and license plates viewable, which is what the Flock images also capture. Both cities provided me with the surveillance videos I requested without issue but denied the Flock images, so my attorney used that to show how they contradict themselves.”

Flock Safety isn’t even publicly traded. I was curious how this affected their stock, but they are a privately held company.

>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.”

I’m glad this argument was dismissed.
Imagine all the loopholes this would create regarding ownership of data.

This is actually a win for privacy.