# Cities Shut Off Flock Cameras After Court Loss
# Steve Lehto — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vQn4MWBln0

Welcome once again to Lato's Law. Here's
Steve Lato. We've been talking a lot
about those Flock surveillance cameras
recently and a story popped up in the
news that everybody has sent me. Version
to go with this from kgw.com.
Judge orders police to release
surveillance camera data raising privacy
concerns. So
[laughter]
these cameras are out there
photographing everything and it's Big
Brother but government the government's
doing it with our tax dollars. They're
surveilling us. So some wise guy up
there said, "Hey, I'd like to know what
those cameras are taking pictures of.
Can't I file a FOIA request? Freedom of
Information Act request?
Can I Can't I mean aren't those public
records? Aren't they being created with
my tax dollars?" And a judge has said,
"Yes, actually yes, they are. They are
public records that you can access." So
now it changes the game a little bit
because
if I can get these photographs whenever
I need them um it's not quite not quite
as scary as if they're just gathering
information and not letting anybody else
see it but here's the thing
they're now saying, "Well, if everybody
gets to see this stuff, that's an
invasion of privacy. We we have to stop
this now."
[laughter]
So
it's always fun to watch people change
their arguments
when they're trying to defend something
that's unpopular. So judge has ordered
police to release surveillance camera
data raising privacy concerns. This is
happening in the state of Washington.
The judge's ruling in a Skagit County
case could affect dozens of Washington
police departments using Flock
technology and this issue people will
try this everywhere now because people
are going to go, "Oh, it worked there.
Let's see if it works here."
Data collected by automated license
plate readers used by police departments
across Washington state must be made
public a judge has ruled. It's a
decision that could have far-reaching
implications for law enforcement
surveillance practices.
A judge ruled that images captured by
Flock brand cameras qualify as public
records subject to state's public
records act siding with a tattoo artist
who had sought access to data
from multiple police agencies. And so
the ruling came at the cities of
Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood sued the man
in civil court because he had filed the
record requests. So it's weird how this
works but in many states you can file uh
they often call them FOIA but it's often
different names in different states.
Freedom of Information Act is the laws
group of laws that say that government
documents generally speaking made with
your tax dollars should be available for
you to look at. So you can FOIA request
stuff to find out what government
documents there are.
So he filed these record requests
saying, "I want to see some camera
photos taken by Flock cameras."
And they've
in an opposition to that they filed
lawsuits saying, "No, you can't see this
stuff. It doesn't qualify. It doesn't
qualify."
So the judge said the Flock data do
qualify as public records subject to the
Public Records Act.
The case centers on a network of
automated cameras mounted along busy
streets in communities like
Sedro-Woolley a historic logging town
north of Seattle. The cameras
continuously photograph passing vehicles
and their occupants ostensibly to help
identify stolen cars or vehicles used in
crimes. And every time I talk about
Flock cameras somebody will comment and
say, "But Steve
if it helps fight crime, why is that
bad?"
Well, there's a lot of stuff out there
that helps fight crime but you still got
to use some discretion with it. And the
fact that they're photographing every
thing that goes by constantly means that
if you're in that area, you're living in
a surveillance state where you're being
watched constantly. Now that doesn't
bother you. Like we did the story about
the guy who noticed they put a Flock
camera across street from his house
pointed at his house.
So that every day thousands of
photographs are being taken of cars
passing by his house but his house is in
the background.
So every photograph taken included his
house. And then he backed out of his
driveway, they photographed his car.
When he came home, they photographed his
car.
And he went and complained and at first
they said, "No." And then later they
moved it. They they okay, we we
understand your concern there. So the
man at the heart of this story is a
resident of Oregon who works in Walla
Walla which is a fun town to say.
Describes himself as an ordinary citizen
concerned about government overreach. He
filed public records requests with
dozens of Washington police agencies
seeking images captured by the cameras.
Many agencies complied providing records
that revealed the cameras photograph all
passing vehicles indiscriminately
not just those
and just so you know cuz someone's
already started to write this out.
You can't just file a records request
and say, "Give me everything you have."
Because that would be what they call
overly broad and unduly burdensome.
They're going to say, "Okay, can you
narrow it?" And and they can usually
charge you a reasonable cost for
creating [snorts] records. So if you
called somebody up
usually you got to do it in writing but
work with me here. You contact somebody
go, "I need these records." And they say
it's 300 pages. You say, "Okay, I want
all of them." They can say, "Well, we
charge for copying. Here's much how much
per page times 300." If you're willing
to pay it, they say pay it, you pay it,
they make the copies for you. So if you
contacted them and said, "I want all of
these photographs."
If they said, "Hey, it's going to take
time for someone to download those all."
You say, "I'm willing to pay for it."
Guess what? It it resolves that impasse
but you may have to pay for it. So KING
5 K I N G reviewed dozens of photos
taken by Flock surveillance cameras in
Newcastle on September 16th just one
day.
The images clearly show the faces and
license plates of everyday drivers not
just those who are suspected of
anything. KING 5 has included the images
in one of their stories to show examples
of what Flock cameras capture but it was
a TV station that blurred people's faces
and license plates for privacy. So the
man who's at the center of this said, "I
feel like it's violating my privacy,
everyone's privacy regardless if you're
obeying the law. It's not like you're a
traffic light camera that takes a
picture of all the people that are
breaking the law by speeding or
whatever. It's taking pictures of every
single vehicle that passes by."
Meanwhile, an attorney representing
Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood argued that
releasing the images publicly would
violate individuals' privacy.
[laughter]
Could enable malicious actors such as
stalkers. She said the present court
case involves a fairly specific issue
regarding a very valuable and effective
enforcement tool. Now notice how she
says, "We've got all these photographs
but we can't release them because that
would invade people's privacy."
Uh
wasn't it already invaded when you
photographed them?
No?
But the judge found that the scope of
Flock surveillance was so broad and
indiscriminate with most images
capturing people not suspected of
anything that the data must be released
under public records law. The judge said
the ruling does not touch on any other
controversies surrounding automated
license plate readers only the issues
related to public records act. So the
case
follows after a report from the
University of Washington came out last
month that found that federal agents had
accessed Washington's Flock camera
network which possibly violated a state
law prohibiting the use of these systems
in enforcing federal law but another
story all together. The attorney for the
man at the center of the case said the
case has revealed gaps in oversight.
Oh.
I think a lot of cities are discovering
right now that we don't know who all has
access to this, he said.
He said the Flock software is more
sophisticated than simple license plate
readers. It can potentially identify
vehicles through make and model bumper
stickers, dents in the vehicle and a
roof rack or bike rack or what have you.
Attorneys of the city said they would
evaluate the decision before determining
their next step. Meanwhile
Flock cameras in both of those cities
have been deactivated.
So in a roundabout and very strange way
this tattoo artist may have figured out
how
[laughter]
how to make this stop. But
it's interesting point and it's actually
a very good argument.
So if my tax dollars were partially used
to put up the cameras that are
surveilling me shouldn't I have access
to the surveillance?
I mean
it's public records, isn't it? And I
think it's hilarious that the attorneys
for the cities are going "But that would
be violating people's privacy if we
release the photos."
Um I think that horse is already sailed.
I I I think when you took the picture
you you you
already invaded somebody's privacy. And
I understand people go, "Steve, you
can't expect privacy in a public place."
Yeah, I know I I get that argument but
on the other hand, do you really want
people photographing you every time
you're outside? Hey, photographs
photographs photographs, you know. I
understand it's a machine, it's not a
person. I get that. You're in a car,
you're not walking. I get that, too.
Okay? But you have to understand that
this is a slippery slope. And if we've
got them photographing in right now how
long until they're photographing people?
Just people walking by.
I mean, why not? Let's Let's Let's film
everybody who walks by. And I know
they've got that technology and I know
they've got it employed in some places.
But it could get to the point where
everywhere you go, you're going to be
surveilled 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, unless you're inside your own
home. And quite frankly,
it's not that far off. Because in many
respects, you already are being
surveilled. It's just by your
appliances.
[laughter]
[snorts]
I only laugh because it's true. So, to
everybody who sent this, thank you very
much. It's a fascinating development. Um
and it makes complete sense, but I'm
surprised I didn't think of this myself
earlier. I wish I had. But I salute the
guy who did
go ahead and file the records request.
And his request led to ultimately them
shutting the cameras down for now. So,
we'll see what happens. But kgw.com ran
the story. Everybody sent it to me. And
I looked up Skagit, and I think I'm
saying that correctly. Please, if I'm
not, let me know. Judge orders police to
release surveillance camera data,
raising privacy concerns with them flock
cameras. Questions or comments, put them
below. Always talk to you later.
Bye-bye.
Thank you for watching Lato's Law.
It is what it is.