At least 13 of the 53 jurisdictions that received a records request from Rodriguez have since canceled their Flock contracts or deactivated the cameras
A true patriot at work
So all he had to do was make a public records request for the images flock cameras took as he drove by, and they couldn’t produce the images?
Time to make some data requests to my local city then…
Unless the viability of these lawsuits is a quirk of Washington freedom of information laws, this tactic should be expanded to more states.
In Washington he managed to do this before his legal window of opportunity closed.
Washington state started regulating use of ALPRS by law enforcement this year. A new law that went into effect in March limits the use of ALPR data to investigate felonies and gross misdemeanors, exempts the data from public records requests and closes loopholes that could previously be exploited by immigration enforcement agencies outside the state.
So now they just didn’t have to reveal the info…
So the local governments are paying for these lawsuits, not flock right?
And who funds the local governments? Good for him, but Flock Safety is not hurt in the least.
this from @brown5500@sh.itjust.works :
At least 13 of the 53 jurisdictions that received a records request from Rodriguez have since canceled their Flock contracts or deactivated the cameras
That’s my point. All of the residents are paying for this. Flock doesn’t give a fuck.
this from @brown5500@sh.itjust.works :
At least 13 of the 53 jurisdictions that received a records request from Rodriguez have since canceled their Flock contracts or deactivated the cameras
Well a quarter isn’t bad I guess.
Yeah I guess the assumption is his action pushed them to it and theoretically if more and more people do it then more and more jurisdictions might be forced to cancel.
But flock isn’t the issue, the local governments are. It’s the local government that puts up the camera and authorizes there use. If Flock went out of business some other company would fill that void, and flock does have competitors.
Some might argue flock facilitates illegal access to the data and stored video. In which case it’s more about the backend service than the cameras themselves. But yeah other companies can do that too.
Sorry, I was agreeing with you. Yes-and-ing.
All of which is paid for by the taxpayer, who is also paying for the flock cameras. Its like hitting yourself in the face and claiming you beat someone up.
Bootlick
Unless he robin hoods it.
Modern problems require modern solutions.
Really? Are they paying extra taxes for this? Or are the taxes already paid and the local funds now being badly used which causes problems with their higher ups?
