- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Redmond turns off Flock Safety cameras after ICE arrests
Posted on 11/10/25 at 12:15 pm to imjustafatkid
Posted on 11/10/25 at 12:15 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Cities across Snohomish County were awaiting Thursday’s decision to gain clarity on how the state’s Public Records Act could apply to Flock camera footage. Some were waiting on the decision to determine whether or not to install Flock cameras at all.
But it's about safety
1
Posted on 11/10/25 at 12:17 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
Did they remove their red light cameras too? Speeding cameras?
I am so glad I live in a state that got enough Republican representation to effectively ban these abominations.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 12:20 pm to BigBinBR
quote:
So their argument was that they can invade people’s privacy by recording everyone but can’t let taxpayers see it because it’s an invasion of privacy.
Because the county law enforcement having the data and it being publicly available are the same thing?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 12:24 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Cities across Snohomish County were awaiting Thursday’s decision to gain clarity on how the state’s Public Records Act could apply to Flock camera footage. Some were waiting on the decision to determine whether or not to install Flock cameras at all
Hilarious that a “progressive” county would weigh whether or not to install public surveillance based on if the data collected was able to be obtained by the public. The very public under surveillance.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 12:29 pm to Jbird
quote:
Another example of protecting Illegals at the price of citizens.
Yea it's funny because I heard people (including city officials) would be arrested for interfering with federal agents carrying out lawful orders against illegal aliens in the US.
Guess that was all a dog and pony show.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 12:32 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Because the county law enforcement having the data and it being publicly available are the same thing?
Uh. Yes. It should absolutely should be. And that is what the Skagit County Superior Court judge correctly ruled.
Bodycam video can be requested. Written reports can be requested. Any photo or video taken by law enforcement can be requested. As long as a few exceptions are not claimed by the department. The main one being it would compromise an investigation or prosecution.
And good luck claiming that a camera just recording the public falls under that.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 12:38 pm to BigBinBR
quote:
So their argument was that they can invade people’s privacy by recording everyone but can’t let taxpayers see it because it’s an invasion of privacy.
They have a bunch of cameras on the strip here in Tuscaloosa. They fired a guy a few years ago when a reporter discovered one of the detectives who had access to them used them to zoom in on the barely clothed females walking on the sidewalk.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 12:58 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
They fired a guy a few years ago when a reporter discovered one of the detectives who had access to them used them to zoom in on the barely clothed females walking on the sidewalk.
And in other places, people have been suspended or fired for keeping track of their wives, girlfriends, exes and other people they want to spy on.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:16 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Bodycam video can be requested. Written reports can be requested. Any photo or video taken by law enforcement can be requested.
It can be requested, yes. You won’t get it most of the time.
No, the public should not have unrestricted access to the plate reader data. Absolutely nothing good comes from that.
quote:
The main one being it would compromise an investigation or prosecution. And good luck claiming that a camera just recording the public falls under that.
This is a case where the exception swallows the rule. Any time “the public” would be interested in this—it will be because it’s part of an investigation
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:18 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
And in other places, people have been suspended or fired for keeping track of their wives, girlfriends, exes and other people they want to spy on.
And yet you’re wanting them to be subject to FOIA requests
As if that wouldn’t make said problem much worse 
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:21 pm to alphaandomega
quote:
They fired a guy a few years ago when a reporter discovered one of the detectives who had access to them used them to zoom in on the barely clothed females walking on the sidewalk.
Well malfeasance in office is terminable offense. It’s also a felony.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:26 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Because the county law enforcement having the data and it being publicly available are the same thing?
Well the judge sure thought so.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:27 pm to BigBinBR
quote:
What’s crazy is the county argued against the FOIA release because it would be an invasion of people’s privacy.
The invasion already occurred.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:30 pm to BigBinBR
quote:
Well the judge sure thought so.
Yes, some random county judge did. It will fall into the same deal as the body cams once the “exceptions” are fleshed out.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 2:36 pm to HubbaBubba
Baaaaa
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:52 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
No, the public should not have unrestricted access to the plate reader data. Absolutely nothing good comes from that.
Care to explain why public video cannot be obtained? You are not asking them to run information. You cannot ask them to run any information because those records do not exist at the time of the request. Any information requested through open record must exist at the time of the request. That’s part of the law.
You are just asking for the video.
quote:
This is a case where the exception swallows the rule. Any time “the public” would be interested in this—it will be because it’s part of an investigation
It doesn’t count if it’s part of the requesters investigation. You cannot deny open records due to a suspicion of that. Otherwise the press couldnt get anything. It’s the departments investigation or prosecution that has to be compromised. And it cannot be “it may will”, it has to be specifically laid out how it will compromise it if you sue for it.
I’ll bet you anything you want to bet that you can request security footage of a federal buildings common (public) area and exterior through FOIA. Anything you wanna name. As long as it’s within the timeframe that it’s held. I know law firms that have done it to try to get footage of an accident. It was released to them in full for their timeframe requested via FOIA.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 3:59 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And yet you’re wanting them to be subject to FOIA requests As if that wouldn’t make said problem much worse
Again, it’s public video. Public information is accessible by open records acts.
It’s the friken purpose of the FOIA, and the subsequent state laws on open records, to begin with. To request public information that they want hidden, to keep tabs on the government. A video that does not identify or give personal information is subject to be obtained by anyone. And any private, identifiable, third party information only can be redacted without a full withholding.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:00 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Care to explain why public video cannot be obtained? You are not asking them to run information. You cannot ask them to run any information because those records do not exist at the time of the request. Any information requested through open record must exist at the time of the request. That’s part of the law. You are just asking for the video.
All video and every scan of every vehicle is kept from these systems. You actually think it’s in the public interest to be able to access them?
I suppose that’s good news for any and all stalkers, rapists, and obsessed ex-husbands out there.
quote:
bet you anything you want to bet that you can request security footage of a federal buildings common (public) area and exterior through FOIA. Anything you wanna name. As long as it’s within the timeframe that it’s held. I know law firms that have done it to try to get footage of an accident. It was released to them in full for their timeframe requested via FOIA.
If it’s completely innocuous, maybe. But you obviously have zero experience in dealing with public entities and FOIA/PRR’s if you think they just give it over anytime it’s requested. No, the public entities generally fight it tooth and nail, and generally win.
Random red light footage of an accident? Duh you can get if it needed for evidence of the scene. Fishing expeditions of traffic cams because you just want the information? Nope. No shot.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:02 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
It’s the friken purpose of the FOIA, and the subsequent state laws on open records, to begin with. To request public information that they want hidden, to keep tabs on the government. A video that does not identify or give personal information is subject to be obtained by anyone. And any private, identifiable, third party information only can be redacted without a full withholding.
And in your mind, license plates, facial recognition, vehicle ID, etc isn’t identifying information?
These Flock cameras record every vehicle that passes by. They are searchable, traceable (when aligned in conjunction with other cameras and municipalities), etc.
Even the ruling that you’re relying on doesn’t say what you think it does. They CAN be subject to request. They generally are not.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:04 pm to Hognutz
quote:
The idiots protesting no kings should be protesting mass surveillance, the data centers and the entire digital slave grid.
The Democratic Socialist foot soldiers will not understand this^^^ until it's too late.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News