Cities Shut Off Flock Cameras After Court Loss

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.