I wrote this. I had/have absolutely no expectation that Flock would comply with my request, but figured I should try anyway For Science. Their reply rubbed me wrong, though. They seem to claim that there are no restrictions on their collection and processing of PII because other people pay them for it. They say:
> Flock Safety’s customers own the data and make all decisions around how such data is used and shared.
which seems to directly oppose the CCPA. It's my data, not their customers'.
Again, I didn't really expect this to work. And yet, I'm still disappointed with the path by which it didn't work.
They were saying "don't write to us, talk to the people who own the cameras and ask them to delete the data". A company that manufactures video cameras is not the one to talk to when someone records you, talk to the person who recorded you.
But a reasonable person would say -- the data is stored on Flock servers, not with the camera owners. And Flock would say, just because we sell data storage functionality to camera owners doesn't mean we own the data, anymore than a storage service you rent a space from owns what you put in that space.
But then an even more reasonable person would say: the infrastructure is designed in such a way as to create inadvertent sharing, and the system has vulnerabilities that compromise the data, so Flock has responsibility for setting up the system in such a way that it's basically designed to violate privacy.
And that is the main criticism of Flock. You need to have a more nuanced criticism. It would be really interesting to see this litigated.
But the data collected is property of the government and flock is not allowed to use that data for additional business gain (according to their statements)...
So they can't sell the fact that you're at Target at 8:00 p.m. on Thursday to anybody... Nor build profiles to sell to advertisers... And if that's the case that's very similar to cloud storage vendors.
If I access hacker news, and the record of my visit is stored in an AWS S3 bucket, I can't submit to AWS to delete my visitor record, even though the server, network cards, wires, and storage medium are AWS property, it was hacker news' website that generated that record and their responsibility to take my request to delete it.. AWS' stance would rightly be "talk to the website operator for CCPA requests"
The AWS analogy breaks down because AWS doesn't encourage customers to pool their S3 buckets into a nationwide searchable index.
Flock operates a federated network. If you drive past an unmarked camera, you have absolutely no way of knowing which specific HOA or town leased it so how are you realistically supposed to know who the "data controller" is to send your ccpa or deletion request to?
Someone once dropped some fireworks not too far from me at 3am a few years back. They were loud and, yeah, cops were called. A few minutes later about five cars drive past me about 30mph over the limit. Not sure how they didn't see me or try to see me. But I know they didn't catch the BRIGHT orange and lifted care.
Me being me, I submitted a FOIA request for the dashcam footage of the five cop cars and the dispatch logs.
Instead of pulling over the easily identifiable car, they pulled over some random guy. They were behind him the whole time but five cop cars pulled behind him thinking that he fired a gun a few minutes back.
He was let go without a citation, but the official reason, despite being paired with the dispatch for the firecracker, was a broken headlamp.
I may or may not know a business owner who got criminals off their business' street by saying he thinks he saw a gun any time criminals showed up to do things, everything from prostitution to selling drugs. Cops showed up immediately. They stopped coming by altogether, probably the safest street in quite a rough part of town.
It's crazy how cops just rush to very specific and nuanced crimes. Someone likely said they heard gun shots, and then they scrambled to find them.
I don’t care. I don’t care who owns the data. If I can’t easily get private information like my movements removed from a database like this, the legislation does not sufficiently protect me.
It should absolutely be Flock’s responsibility to remove my data and we should absolutely require it by law. Full stop.
The problem with this is where do you draw the line? If I film you with my iPhone (e.g. you walk past in the background of my video), Apple should delete my video from my phone and iCloud account based only on your instructions?
Apple hold the data in iCloud, Apple (or a phone network) may be leasing me the phone. That sounds pretty similar to the Flock situation.
I guess the difference is that flock might be sharing the data from a customers camera with other customers. Then they are definitely controlling it.
I think the bigger problem with Flock is the fact that their cyber security is so laughably bad that non-customers can easily access the data.
Not pronouncing about what path is the most distopic, just for the fun of the exercise of what if we push in the direction:
Given the rule, I would expect (IANAL), Apple should not deal with data stored on phones they sold.
People are responsible for what they store on their device. When I take a photo in the street, if someone come to me asking to erase a photo with them or their kids as they were in the background, I'll tell I don't publish any photo online, which is generally what people are thinking of as a concern and that stop there, but if they insist I will remove it from my phone. Because I'm too lazy to actually live edit the photo and remove them from the picture, even if that is certainly doable with a simple prompt by now.
Now if Apple store automatically photo in some remote server they own, they are the ones who should be responsible to comply with making sure they won't store something illegally. Microsoft, Google, and Apple use PhotoDNA to detect known CSAM if I'm not mistaken. Though legally they only should remove once they get a notice about it. Same way, they could proactively blur visages of people not detected as the people that were whitelisted for the uploading account. And, by that logic, they should certainly remove the information regarding a person if they get a notice, just as well as they wouldn't keep CSAM data once notified, would they?
Anyway the underlying issue is not who store what, but what societies lose at letting mass surveillance infrastructures being deployed, no matter how the ownership/responsibility dilution game is played on top of it.
The legal term is 'distinction without a difference'. Flock/others can't create a weaselly scenario to pretend it's something else. Otherwise people could bypass all kinds of laws/rules just by giving some weaselly description to everything.
This also falls under the 2026 rule 'everyone Is 12 Now'. Flock is literally acting like a 12 year old to get out of following the rules. My 12 year old tried to use this dumb parsing of things to avoid rules/consequences.
A reasonably nuanced defense could likely claim that to be able to do what you want, would have much worse side effects on privacy.
For example, would you want to be able to tell Public Storage (or some other storage unit place) to remove any naked photos of you stored anywhere in their storage units?
For them to actually be able to do that would require they have nigh omniscience on everything stored by/for everyone in every one of their storage units. Even inside closed boxes.
Now, it's not the same thing of course - but hopefully you understand what I'm referring to?
Except that the analogy is that they already have, or can easily create, that list. If they couldn’t, their value proposition would be lame. “We know you’re looking for a specific license plate, here’s a million hours of footage from all over the city, have at looking through it all.”
Only for paying customers, which you aren't of course. If those customers paid public storage to inventory their stuff, then that inventory is their property. Surely it would be inappropriate to use their inventory data to find your naked photos. A violation of privacy even. (/s, kinda)
I was enumerating the likely defense, not that it's valid.
This is also true according to their contracts (we were one of the first munis in the country to ostentatiously cancel our Flock contract, and the lead up to that was a bunch of progressive legal experts poring over that contract looking for holes.)
>a bunch of progressive legal experts poring over that contract looking for holes
all attorneys represent their clients; your attorney does not have to share your opinion of the law or public policy, they can still interpret what the law means to you.
if you are afraid your attorney might have a bias (they are human) you may get better advice from the "misaligned" POV: the flaws/holes in a privacy law found by a pro-business conservative attorney are more likely to find sympathy in the courts from both fellow conservatives and progressive judges.
As a practical matter, this may be good advice. But it also places a demand on someone with a legitimate concern that they go find an ideological "beard" to make themselves more palatable and sympathetic.
It's not hard to see how this enables an institution to gate itself from criticism.
> But the data collected is property of the government
I thought this was the get-out clause from the constitutional problems with Flock? That because Flock is a non-government organisation it isn't restricted by the constitution (i.e. the constitution only restricts what the government can do).
They can't have it both ways - if Flock are collecting the data then they are subject to the privacy laws. If it's the government collecting the data via Flock as just a service, then they are subject to constitutional restrictions.
Except that Flock very clearly benefits financially from having direct access to this data: owning (and in their own documentation, they very clearly do own it) a network of 80,000 surveillance devices across the country, and owning every single transit point for the data they collect, is what gets them to a $7.5 billion valuation from investors.
The fact of the matter is that Flock is playing two-step with the concept of "ownership" of data. They disclaim ownership as a way to leave local agencies holding the bag for liabilities, but they fight tenaciously to retain complete and unfettered access to that data.
(After organizing a community group that won Flock contract cancellations in multiple jurisdictions in Oregon, I went on to coauthor state legislation regulating ALPRs. I am very well familiar with all the dirty ball they play.)
Also, Flock's cameras collect more data than is provided to police agencies. Who owns that data, I wonder?
That makes them a data broker in my reading, and at least in California, Data Broker legislation should apply. CA Data Broker registry gives me access denied, but that could be because I am outside US.
Because Flock isn't a data broker. Flock's customers own their data, not Flock, and they use Flock's platform voluntarily to share data with other customers.
Flock charges to access the data which is voluntarily shared by other customers. I am struggling to note a difference in this practice from any other data brokerage service in existence.
Does Flock do some kind of P2P dance to avoid the data transiting their systems?
They are not, because they are not operating a business that acquires and resells your data. You own your document, and Google isn't selling it to third parties. Flock doesn't own municipal data, and Flock is also not "selling it to third parties"; it's facilitating a sharing system that law enforcement agencies avidly desire.
Presumably the California data brokerage statutes were written specifically to prevent the kind of nerd-lawyering happening on this thread.
I was referring to the claim that "Flock's cameras collect more data than is provided to police agencies" — that suggests that there is data not "owned" by the customers, which implies it's Flock's data, thus it might make them liable under Data Broker legislation.
I encourage you to present that analogy to an actual court and see how far it gets you. It's very easy to find the statutory definition of a "data broker" under California law.
This is what I mean by the fruitlessness of these kinds of legal discussions on HN. What do you want me to argue, that you're wrong to want the law to work that way?
Technically, most stocks are registered in the name of a securities holding company, with you named as beneficial owner. That makes it frictionless for you to buy and sell. You enjoy all the rights of ownership, unless the broker lends your shares out to someone else.
So… Flock uses their own platform and top to bottom tech stack to do everything technically? Your local PD doesn’t use random cameras (like Reolink), doesn’t run a custom software stack (like Frigate in a container on some random VM hosted with AWS), doesn’t store the data wherever (like Backblaze)? The customers just have to install the Flock cameras and “order” the subsequent data from Flock? But you say they’re not at all responsible or accountable for any it because despite doing everything at every step, they’re “just a broker”?
If Flock's customers, using Flock's infrastructure or tooling, can share data with each other, that would be bad.
I'm not saying that's what's happening, but that's what I thought was happening before reading this thread, and now I have to go and run through their policies.
Either way ALPRs and AI-facial scanners in public are a huge violation of privacy and I loathe them, but I hope it's correct that Flock customers cannot easily share information with one another.
> If Flock's customers, using Flock's infrastructure or tooling, can share data with each other, that would be bad.
Ex-employee of Flock here, that's ABSOLUTELY what's happening.
And what's more Flock lets them do so even when they know the agencies are legally not permitted to do so. They turn a blind eye, say it's not their problem to enforce ("oh, doing so in state X is illegal? Well, even if your agency is in state X, we didn't disable that feature"), then happily provide training to do enable those agencies to do so (and it's a nudge nudge wink wink part of the sales process.)
That’s a pretty compelling argument, but what if I went round to AWS’ house, peeked into their kitchen, and saw a crate of photos on their table with me in them?
I’d absolutely say:
“Hey, that’s me! Give me those right now!”
I’d also be pretty angry if they told me:
“Sorry we’re storing those for Corp Inc. Go ask them.”
To refute my own point though, this only sounds annoying because the data processor is being irritating by manually referring me to the data controller. In practice, it would be trivial for them to automatically forward communications between me and the controller.
That’s what feels is amiss with the top level article.
If I lease out a property to a tenant (apartment, retail, industrial use, whatever) and that tenant is committing an illegal activity on the property. Would the landlord be liable for knowing it? Or not?
"Sorry FBI, the tenant renting my warehouse out to manufacturing cocaine is not my responsibility. I won't do anything about it. You deal with them."
Nope, that's a failure of a duty to act and aiding and abetting a criminal activity if you hace constructive knowledge.
I assume they are building "meta-data" profiles of people based on the data they say they can't use directly. That seems like an easy work-around that satisfies the lip-service they've given to the issue.
This is worth validating independently, but to be clear:
Are you saying Flock itself does not have access to any of the data, and that the data they store on behalf of local governments is not fed into any central datalake? That every organization's data is completely, unalterably separate from everyone else's?
If so, that makes the panopticon slightly less powerful.
Yeah but their argument is that if someone takes a photo of you with thier iphone and its uploaded to icloud, you cant ask apple to delete the photo, you need to ask the person who took it
Your example is apples and oranges. Flock maintains private infrastructure that stores data.
If the DSLR uploaded them to Rent-A-Center owned/leased servers it would in fact require Rent-A-Center to take the necessary steps.
As Rent-A-Center would be the only group with proper access to data storage they would have inserted themselves into the chain of custody, and thereby have such obligation to ensure others data is wiped from systems they control.
Flock has knowledge/use of the data. Their system processes can relate the photos “owned” by two different entities. They’re interacting with it and selling their access to it as a feature. That’s obviously distinct from S3.
I know quite a bit about Flock, having been intimately involved in the process of evicting it from our municipality, and I don't think the distinction you're trying to draw here is meaningful. Flock will say they provide a service, one avidly sought by the actual owners of the data, to generate analysis based on that data.
They're contractually forbidden from "selling their access to it" to arbitrary parties; they can share data only with the consent of their customers, almost all of whom actively want that data shared --- this is a very rare case of a data collection product where that's actually the case.
Flock's facilitation of data-sharing is a huge part of their value proposition over other cameras, and why their customers buy from them over their competitors.
As such, even if they can contract it such that they are not legally responsible for such use, they are very much knowingly facilitating it. If this was physical goods, rather than data, they would probably been as responsible as their customers.
I've read our contract. I know what it says. This isn't an abstraction. They can do lots of things. What they actually do is not data brokerage under California Law, at least not that I can tell.
What Flock names the relationship in their contract does not make it one, as the courts do very much duck type.
Flock knowingly collects PII of people they have no direct relationship with, and transfers it to third parties. If that transfer, which Flock seem to gain from, is legally a sale is something to be argued at a great expense in front of the court.
But regardless of that definition, I so think that any reasonable person (= not a corporate lawyer) would consider there is a sale of data here.
Except their customer's data isn't actually theirs: OP requested their private data to be deleted from the system. So OP expressed a clear intent for their data not to be used by Flock's customer. We could say that the data thus becomes abusively retained on these systems. As a result, IF Flock has the technical means of performing the requested data deletion, it should be compelled to perform it.
This is the same situation as a web hosting provider: if it is communicated to them that one of their customers uses their service to host illegal content, then it becomes the web hosting provider's responsibility to remove that content.
Reasonable technical feasibility for the service provider is key here, but it can be argued since the data can apparently be shared in ways that identify OP.
Probably not how the law currently works (don't know, not a lawyer), but I guess it should, as otherwise it allows creating a platform that shares abusively retained data without any reasonable recourse for the subjects of this data to remove the data from the platform.
If I as a photographer take a photograph of someone, the photo does not belong to that person—the photographer retains the IP and ownership rights.
You have rights too, such as privacy/likeness rights, which allow you to restrict what the IP owner is allowed to do with the image that they own, but you do not own the data, and your rights give you a claim against the data owner.
Flock probably have legal obligations or contractual commitments not to delete or destroy their customers' data, and changing that is not necessarily a good thing.
I don't live in a state with a law like California's so your "gotcha" isn't relevant.
Californians would have standing under the law but need expensive lawyers to litigate.
AWS has employed expensive lawyers to argue semantics; they host OS VMs and databases. This provides them legal cover for what AWS customers store.
Amazon the retailer stores customer data. A non-customer would have standing under California law to litigate removal of PII should they decide to hire lawyers.
Your reductionism is to law what a Linux beige box on a routable IP, no firewall, hosting a production health database with creds set to admin/pwd1234 is to software engineering.
Coincidentally 1234 happens to be the code to my luggage.
If AWS maintained private infrastructure that stored and indexed data associated with people's license plates and vehicles and then charged customers to do searches against that data then yes, you could write them to ask them to purge data pertaining to you.
If Flock was just an opaque cloud storage service for law enforcement to back up their mass surveillance to then sure, your argument would have merit; it's not, it's a giant database of photos, locations, times, license plate information, and likely a lot more. They're not selling cloud storage, they're selling (leasing?) surveillance devices and tools.
The argument you're making implicates way more than just Flock, and is in a practical sense novel. If you can cite jurisprudence (or even legal experts) backing it up, I'm interested in reading it. Otherwise, I'm happy to accept that we just have premises about the law that are too far apart for an argument to be productive.
My experience on HN is that these kinds of discussions almost immediately devolve into debates about what people want the law to be, as opposed to what it actually is.
Realistically speaking you're never going to get pro Flock people in any numbers on this site writing comments at all. The anti surveillance position's popularity when it comes to up votes, down votes, and flags on this site is such that pros will continue posting about what they want the law to be and antis will stay out. That's just how crowd voting dynamics shape out.
Devils advocate here. There is currently an article on the front page about a US bill to compel operating systems to collect age verification / id data. If something like that was actually in place and every packet on the internet was stamped with your digital id then you could feasibly demand that aws purge/filter your data out of their systems.
You can't even request AWS delete your actual PII from S3. If you've been to a doctor in the last 2 years, you have HIPAA PII somewhere on S3, and AWS won't do a thing about it for you. I don't know why people have this idea that service providers will scrub their customers data for you.
Does AWS actively and by design parse and keep track of personally identifiable information of the data that AWS customers store on their S3 buckets? If that were the case they would absolutely be subject to CCPA (and GDPR) requests for deletion.
However, I suspect that is not the case. AWS is agnostic as to the type of data stored on S3, and deletion of PII stored on S3 is the sole responsibility of the AWS customer that chooses to store it.
I think if it were only offline storage it would not be as big of an issue. A more accurate analogy would be renting a DSLR that automatically transmits every picture to Rent-A-Center servers.
If Rent-A-Center installed the camera in a bathroom, I'd contend that it does.
Flock's cameras aren't in bathrooms. However, they're still recording people who haven't opted into it. ("But you have no expectation of privacy in a public place!" "You have the expectation that someone might inadvertently overhear you. You don't have the expectation that someone is actively recording you at all times.")
> They were saying "don't write to us, talk to the people who own the cameras and ask them to delete the data".
The response to this should just be, "Yes, very well, please divulge a complete list of your customers, their contact information, and information about camera locations so I will be able to pursue this per instructions".
When that obviously doesn't work either then we can all agree the law as written is completely useless, and feel great about rewriting it in a way that's calculated for maximum damage to both the vendor and their customers, and collateral damage to the whole panopticon. Or, just spitballing here, we can just skip to the punchline here and do all that anyway
It easily goes both ways. But we do sue American gun makers for deaths caused by lunatics. We sue drug makers for drugs prescribed by a doctor. We sue cloud providers for not reporting illegal photos. Printers are forced to id every printed page to combat counterfeiting. Banks are forced to do close accounts even though it's not their dirty money
Most of those examples have to do with the manufacturers knowing that their products were dangerous, addictive or illegal and advertising them aggressively as safe. They're mostly litigated on product liability claims. Banks are regulated by an entire architecture of laws, and we could enact laws that would regulate Flock too, as one of the other commenters pointed out they're doing in Oregon.
the way this has been addressed in complex product liability in the past in the USA is that the public-facing Brand Owner has certain legal liability for the product, despite contractors or supply chains. In this case, it appears that the Flock company is the brand owner and is public-facing.
I think you should write them back and ask that they provide you with a customer list and continually update you as they get new customers so that you may follow the advice they've given you.
I wouldn't be so sure. In this specific case, they told me to ask their customers to comply with my CCPA rights. Without that information, it's impossible for me to exercise those rights. IANAL, but that sounds like a pursuable path.
> If a service provider has said that it does not or cannot act on your request because it is a service provider, you may follow up to ask who the business is. However, sometimes the service provider will not be able to provide that information. You may be able to determine who the business is based on the services that the service provider provides, although sometimes this may be difficult or impossible.
I’ve been in the lobby of hundreds of different technology companies and my understanding is that all companies are going to give you a customer list, you just have to look in the right place.
Wait, is it your data? If you drive your car in front of a Ring camera on my house (I don't have a Ring camera don't @ me), is it your claim that you own the data on that camera?
Did you put up a Ring camera on a stand in front of your house for the specific purpose of selling that I drove past at this specific timestamp? If so, yes. The CCPA[0] gives me explicit legal rights:
* The right to know about the personal information a business collects about them and how it is used and shared;
* The right to delete personal information collected from them (with some exceptions);
* The right to opt-out of the sale or sharing of their personal information including via the GPC;
This isn't someone incidentally taking pictures of license plates in an otherwise noncommercial setting. It's a company literally created to collect and sell PII. Laws are different for them than for us.
I think you're going to find that you're wrong about this, and that you're not going to get anywhere targeting Flock in particular, as opposed to the owners of Flock cameras. Consider that California has had multiple rounds of legislation about red light camera legislation, including new limitations on it, and all of those cameras are also from commercial providers collecting your PII. Your argument proves too much.
You're going to get a lot of cheerleading and support about this in venues like HN and Reddit, because you're narrowcasting to an audience already primed to be hyperconcerned about surveillance technology (I am too). I think you're going to find those attitudes do not in fact generalize to the public at large, and especially not to the legal system.
Best of luck either way. It'll be an interesting experience to write up, and I'm happy to read about the outcome, even if I do think it's highly predictable.
FWIW, I just did this as an experiment and turned it into a blog post afterward. I didn't really set out with an agenda or a deliberate audience, and I didn't share it here. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy to chat about it! But this ended up here without any special effort on my part.
I know the feeling! My arguments here are positive, not normative. I don't know that I think it would be a worse world if your hypothesis was correct. I'm just reasonably sure it isn't.
For sure. This is the sort of conversation I'd typically rather be having at a bar with appropriate beverages. If it sounds like I'm arguing, it's because it's the kind of thing I'd debate with my friends for the fun of it.
Well, it matters if the photographer is the government (or contracted by the government, or subpoenaed by the government): see Chatrie v. United States [0]. The Fourth Amendment exists, and it remains to be tested whether querying massive surveillance networks is a "reasonable" search.
I think it'd be challenging to rule that a license plate number is not personally identifiable information, when the same regulations often state that an IP address is.
"Anyone could have been driving my car, you can't positively identify me in the driver's seat with the evidence you have submitted" is routinely used to toss out cases involving traffic violations. It's not necessarily common but it does happen. By this logic a license plate does not personally identify the person driving, only the person the car is registered to.
Yet the same is true of IP addresses. You (typically) cannot know for certain whether traffic from an IP address was originated by a specific person and yet it's typically considered PII because it can be used in conjunction with other information to identify you.
Even your full legal name and birth date cannot be guaranteed to refer only to you specifically (as there could be someone else with an identical name and birth date), but it's obviously still PII because it helps narrow the field immensely if you can combine it with other information - for example, your IP address.
So yeah, "anyone could have been driving my car", but if you also know that the car drove from your home to your work then that narrows down the list of likely individuals immensely.
Conversely, if your license plate was spotted parked near an anti-ICE rally, then they can be pretty confident that you or someone you know was near an anti-ICE rally, which means they can harass you about it, follow you around, shoot you in the street, etc.
The standard of proving someone's guilt in a crime or civil infraction is higher than the one for inferring that someone could plausibly be the person you want. This is the basis of parallel construction, wherein a government agency plays a game of "pin a crime on the suspect."
> “Personal information” does not include [...] Information that a business has a reasonable basis to believe is lawfully made available to the general public by the consumer
Personal information usually does include photos of someone in public without their consent: exceptions usually hold for taking photos of people where it is in the public interest to be able to show them or impractical to get consent. This covers large gatherings and celebrities, but a portrait photo of a stranger might put you on the wrong side of the law.
Obviously, the idea is to not disallow having someone take a photo of you as a background, passing figure as they take a front-and-center photo of their family, but not allow you to be the main subject unknowingly and especially when you object explicitly.
On the other hand, a photographer still owns the copyright to a photo, so a subject (including in a portrait) cannot claim it or distribute it without permission even if they can potentially stop the photographer from distributing that photo.
IANAL, but you are not by default allowed to use anyone's "likeness" for your individual profit.
> Personal information usually does include photos of someone in public without their consent
This is not the case in the United States. There is no presumption of privacy in public. In fact, there is a whole genre known as "street photography" that involves taking pictures in public without explicit consent of the subjects.
This is true, and it may also be true that location tracking through surveillance networks crosses a line into violating one or more Constitutional rights. One of Flock's revenue streams is explicitly selling access to data made available by other customers. A commonly-cited example is the ability of local law enforcement to locate abortion suspects in other states using the Flock camera network [0]; one could imagine dragnet-style or geofenced queries to also cross the line.
People keep making this claim that Flock "explicitly sells access to data", but the link you provided doesn't demonstrate that, and Flock contracts I've read contradict the claim.
I think what's happening here is that people are trying to colloquially define "selling access to data" to fit the camera data sharing that Flock enables, and then saying that because you have to pay to be a Flock customer to get access to that data, they're effectively selling it. I don' think that's how data brokerage laws work. Flock doesn't own the data they're providing access to, and they're providing that sharing access with the (avid!) consent of their customers.
> In fact, there is a whole genre known as "street photography" that involves taking pictures in public without explicit consent of the subjects.
Try taking an upskirt photo of someone in public without their explicit consent. You'll find that there are limitations to that under both Federal and State laws.
> (v) (1) “Personal information” means information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked, directly or indirectly, with a particular consumer or household. Personal information includes, but is not limited to, the following [...]:
> (E) Biometric information.
> (H) Audio, electronic, visual, thermal, olfactory, or similar information.
To your point, the intent would presumably still matter for exceptions to when deletion requests must be honored (say for journalism), but a photo of someone walking down a public street would still logically be considered the subject's personal information, by the above definition.
The laws say that data about you is your data, information about you is your information. No one is saying that you "own the data", but by virtue of the data being personal information about you specificially you are allowed to exert control over that data, such as asking for it to be deleted.
They're invoking a right they do not in fact have under CCPA. Flock is a service provider under CCPA, and isn't required to respond to their request so long as they're operating under the terms of their contract with the municipality (which is, in turn, exempt from CCPA.)
They aren't. Flock is, so are they? Also, the state I live in has a GDPA that would override CCPA, so it's not exactly that cut and dry as you very well know.
The Ring example is garbage. You paid for it and it's on your property. Nothing remotely similar.
I guess then it's OK for Flock to be required installed on your mobile device so they can check your geo history for the last hour and that you don't match the profile of the guy who stole Billy's Huffy bike?
What happens when the municipalities buy time on your device since, well, you don't own it and have no right to the software running on it because of ToS you agreed to. Or that awesome "save the children from CSAM pedos" bill you cheered for that paved the way for the USG and states to be guaranteed citizen introspection app slots on your device?
Because the piece of paper says so, it should then just be accepted as is!
I've lost track of what you're talking about. Flock cameras are installed by municipalities. They're physical devices. Nobody is required to have "Flock" installed on their mobile device. That's not a thing.
I believe you are still the owner of that data, but if you are holding someone's PII — which time of passage, car model and license plates can be argued to be especially with a fixed location — according to privacy regulations, they can ask a business to remove it unless they have a legally acceptable reason to keep it (eg. they hit-and-run a parked vehicle).
Now, with you likely not keeping that Ring tied to a business account, how that applies to non-businesses holding PII is a different matter.
"Your data" isn't really a well defined term, right?
But yes, data that can be used to track my movements in my vehicle is certainly a type of personally identifiable information. I'd argue there should be some exemptions for individuals operating on a small scale, which I believe the CCPA has (and if we actually got a US GDPR, that it should have). But also that kind of exception shouldn't apply to a camera jointly operated by and backhauling to Ring.
It would be revealing to see a judge scrutinize the degree of control Flock maintains over the system and deliberate on whether the company truly is as hands-off as it claims when it comes to privacy obligations.
Personally I feel if you're going to build so turnkey a system to facilitate collection of personal data by your customers at the scale Flock seeks, then at a minimum you should build an equally turnkey method to handle requests like the one you made. It would be a service both to their customers and to consumers at large who wish to exercise their rights under legislation to opt out.
The fundamental reason we ended up in a world where companies just pay lip service to privacy and don't take it seriously is because consumers / voters put up with it. I'm heartened when I see individuals keyed into the issue.
Is there some way to contribute funds toward your legal fees?
it is distinctly against Flock's interests to offer a turnkey system to help people opt out of data collection from among Flock's many customers. It might be a service to the general public, but it certainly would not be a service that Flock's actual customers would generally be interested in, at all
In short, Flock is a "service provider" and not the entity doing the recording.
Perhaps you can make a case that they are a "data broker" instead (https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/ccpa#collapse1i), but that is a separate law, and what you are really looking at is a combination of license plate, time and location being collected as data being collected and sold without your consent.
Obviously, I am not a lawyer (and not even US-based), but I like when privacy is respected :)
Nice work all the same. These systems need to be prodded and tested. Even unsuccessful results such as this tell us something about the situation we're in.
The data ownership is really interesting, as many threads here are going into. I wonder if it's possible to sidestep that entirely, though! Under the CCPA, "personal information" is defined as information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked — directly or indirectly — with a particular consumer or household. That says nothing about ownership.
To the extent that Flock is only storing the data on behalf of their customers, I'd understand they wouldn't be required to delete it. But to the extent that they are indexing it, deriving from it, aggregating it across customers, and sharing it via their platform, it seems they should be required to remove that data from those services.
Isn't flock's whole thing that they extract information from the pictures they have?
Like, say I have an interview in your office and you step out for coffee. I take a picture of the applicant list on your desk. That doesn't make the list of applicants "my data".
Well, maybe not. A reasonable person might not think that about that applicant list. I bet you could make a different argument for taking a picture versus memorizing the list too.
The legal system thrives on specifics of a situation, so simply asserting that the list of applicants is or is not "yours" because you can see it seems like a gross oversimplification. The specifics of how you came to be there, what your relationship with the officeholder is, and so on probably matters a lot in that situation and I think there might be some unwritten rules or social norms that you'd be expected to follow as well.
You also might not be considered a commercial entity under the law. It's a bit more nuanced and the words written in a particular statute have to be interpreted together. So statements about "commercial entities" have to be limited to such entities even if we'd really like to be able to go to our neighbor's house and ask them to delete all of the surveillance they have of our cars driving up and down the street in front of their house. I think these laws are often narrowly written to avoid unintended consequences like de-facto banning private operation of surveillance systems on private property.
Setting aside Flock, the "ownership" situation is not as clear as you say above.
What you own is the image copyright. But the right to copy is only one of the rights at issue.
Under various state laws (California in particular), you might not be entitled to do all the things with that picture that you could do of one that doesn't have my likeness. Privacy laws like the CCPA are one possible carve-out. A "right of publicity" is another.
There's an old saying about property law that "property is a bundle of sticks". The bundle can be subdivided.
You know... you might have some success getting LeaglEagle involved, especially since they'd make money on the attention it would bring. Benn Jordan would probably love to be an expert witness.
I've reached out, albeit very informally. I'll completely understand if this isn't something they have the time and energy to help with. If I accidentally caught them at a weak moment when they're looking for something to do, though, I'm all in.
I have some background in data privacy compliance.
It sounds like they are claiming to be a Service Provider under CCPA, which is similar to a Processor under GDPR. Long story short, a Controller is the one legally responsible for ensuring the rights of the data subject, and a service provider/processor is a "dumb pipe" for a Controller that does what they're told. So IF they are actually a Service Provider, they're correct that the legal responsibility for CCPA belongs to their customers and not them.
That's a big IF, though.
Being a Processor/Service Providor means trade-offs. The data you collect isn't yours, you're not allowed to benefit from it. If Flock aggregates data from one customer and sells that aggregate to a different customer, they're no longer just a service provider. They're using data for their own purposes, and cannot claim to be "just" a service provider.
In GDPR terms, the point they're making is that people who own Flock hardware are the Data Controllers, and Flock act only as Data Processors. I'm not sure how (whether?) those roles map to the CCPA, and whether any court of law would agree with them is up for discussion, but at least the concept is not completely absurd.
Of course, the word "owner" is almost rage baiting on their part.
Except under Flock's own contracts and their own website, Flock are the people who own Flock hardware. And this correlates with my understanding from when I was an employee.
Under GDPR, I believe that would be accurate. I think CCPA was to some extent inspired by GDPR so I wouldn't be surprised if they copied this point too.
Which, hilariously, means that under GDPR, you only need to contact the web site, and they have to go talk to their 1207 partners that value your privacy to fulfill your request (I'm sure that in practice they'll say "sorry it's all 'anonymous' so we can't" or "we can't be sure that it's you even though you provided the identifier from your cookies"). I'm really disappointed that NOYB hasn't started going after web sites like that - that's quickly put a damper on the whole web surveillance economy.
The CCPA clearly violates the 1st Amendment. If you're out in public, then people are allowed to see you, to remember it, to communicate that it happened, etc.
Not exactly. One can be charged with stalking, even though the offender only went to places in public that the victim also went to. If combined with a pattern of behavior that, in aggregate, infringes upon the rights of the target, it can become a crime.
These laws get complicated quickly. There's a specific ALPR law in the CA civil code which seems to carve out several exceptions for a business like Flock:
The enforcement provisions are rather bleak as well and afford no opportunity to directly bring a case against the agency that operates the system but instead just the individual who misuses it.
I think one of the more direct attacks would be going after jurisdictions that chronically have officers misusing the system. I think you're going to have to create precedent in this way to foment actual change.
Isn't this just the routine fascist playbook at this point? Start by declaring that the law doesn't even apply to them, on whatever flimsiest of bases.
Personally I would really like to see torts for attorneys who willfully promulgate blatantly incorrect legal interpretations - they're effectively providing incorrect legal advice. A non-attorney is likely to believe such advice coming from a member of the Bar, and the net goal is to discourage the target from seeking further legal advice.
> Flock Safety’s customers own the data and make all decisions around how such data is used and shared.
which seems to directly oppose the CCPA. It's my data, not their customers'.
Again, I didn't really expect this to work. And yet, I'm still disappointed with the path by which it didn't work.