- 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 4:13 pm to Indefatigable
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:13 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
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.
Again. There is an exemption for third party, private information, and it can be redacted. They run queries from the video that is taken from the video. You cannot make them run a query because 1) that is not information that existed at the time of the request, and 2) it is third party information. Third party information can be withheld per the open records acts. But only that. The public version must be released.
What’s the difference in obtaining raw flock camera footage and standing on the right of way with a camera and recording passing traffic?
quote:
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.
I’ll bet you any amount I have more than you.
I FOIA copies of clients examination records from the IRS all the time when they have no records of it. Guess how much they fight those requests? None. They rightly exempt any information of third parties and years outside the request. But I get the file on CD every time. 
1
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:17 pm to CleverUserName
Great. So we agree. If you ask for a single piece of one car going by one camera on a day and time, and you have a legally articulable reason for doing so, you can get it. It’s no different from red light camera footage.
Your prior posts made it sound like you actually believe the general footage was public records subject to disclosure.
ETA: though your comparison to FOIA’ing documents and video footage is still You’ll get a screen grab with a timestamp, at best, if you lose in the parish/county court you issue the subpoena under. These municipalities aren’t just giving them up.
Your prior posts made it sound like you actually believe the general footage was public records subject to disclosure.
ETA: though your comparison to FOIA’ing documents and video footage is still
You’ll get a screen grab with a timestamp, at best, if you lose in the parish/county court you issue the subpoena under. These municipalities aren’t just giving them up. This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 4:19 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:27 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Your prior posts made it sound like you actually believe the general footage was public records subject to disclosure.
The general uncut video is. Because it’s public video with no third party information that is not accessible through the public eye. That falls within the law. You may pay handsomely for an extended run of it per established fee schedules, but it counts.
Again. It’s no different than standing in the right of way wit a camera.
You cannot request a query because that is not information as of the time of the request.
quote:
though your comparison to FOIA’ing documents and video footage is still You’ll get a screen grab with a timestamp, at best,
Again. FOIA security footage for, say, an hour for the exterior public door of a federal building. You will get it including the people coming and going. I know you can, I have seen it, and you can try it yourself.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:29 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
You may pay handsomely for an extended run of it per established fee schedules, but it counts. Again. It’s no different than standing in the right of way wit a camera.
And yet, you still aren’t going to get it. I see it every day. So many retards try and get that stuff and just…don’t.
quote:
Again. FOIA security footage for, say, an hour for the exterior public door of a federal building. You will get it including the people comin and going.
Nothing any state or local agency collects or possesses is subject to FOIA. Practically all of these Flock cameras are run/operated for state and local agencies.
The fact that you’ve gotten security camera footage from federal buildings isn’t relevant.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 4:30 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:31 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And yet, you still aren’t going to get it. I see it every day. So many retards try and get that stuff and just…don’t.
They are from the municipality in the OP aren’t they?
quote:
Nothing any state or local agency collects or possesses is subject to FOIA.
That’s why there are state open records laws that mirror the FOIA.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:34 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
That’s why there are state open records laws that mirror the FOIA.
Maybe Mississippi, or wherever you’re at, operates differently, but Louisiana’s law “mirrors” FOIA. You still aren’t getting it most of the time. Not for video footage and definitely not from the Flock cameras beyond an accident situation or similar and even then, you’re getting screen grabs or at most a very limited video.
Again, sure they’re “public records”. Doesn’t mean that anyone is just entitled to them. The exceptions eat the rule. The locality evokes privacy or investigation 99% of the time and you get your zoomed in photo of one car with a time stamp. Congrats. You aren’t getting more than that. Feel free to spend a few thousand dollars on a writ I guess—that will be denied.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:36 pm to Hognutz
quote:
The idiots protesting no kings should be protesting mass surveillance, the data centers and the entire digital slave grid.
They actually were fine with it when their king was in charge.
Oh and they don't give a shite about the climate either.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:42 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
You still aren’t getting it most of the time. Not for video footage and definitely not from the Flock cameras beyond an accident situation or similar and even then, you’re getting screen grabs or at most a very limited video.
Until someone sues for it. A public entity can deny anything you want. But they better be ready to defend the reasoning.
quote:
Again, sure they’re “public records”. Doesn’t mean that anyone is just entitled to them
Well that doesn’t make them “public” records does it?
quote:
. The exceptions eat the rule. The locality evokes privacy or investigation 99% of the time and you get your zoomed in photo of one car with a time stamp. Congrats. You aren’t getting more than that. Feel free to spend a few thousand dollars on a writ I guess—that will be denied.
Again. The open records laws can be curtailed at an entities’ discretion. But prepare to defend it. Privacy exemptions don’t count for things you can see in open public yourself. Else the fedgov would deny video. But it doesn’t. So if Louisiana’s law mirrors the FOIA, it is wrong to withhold video. Per litigation of the FOIA on the federal level.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 4:45 pm
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:45 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Until someone sues for it.
And lose at the district court. And again, writ denied as well.
You just aren’t getting that footage in Louisiana state court. At least not as of this moment. Not without articulable reason beyond naked curiosity.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:50 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
And lose at the district court. And again, writ denied as well. You just aren’t getting that footage in Louisiana state court. At least not as of this moment. Not without articulable reason beyond naked curiosity.
Has it been litigated before? Again, if the Louisiana state law mirrors the FOIA, the Fed Gov releases actual video of public areas.
So that litigation on the federal level can be argued on the state level. And why should the state find opposite the federal litigation?
Posted on 11/10/25 at 4:54 pm to Hognutz
quote:I don't see him as Saint Snowden, so that's just a catchy phrase.
Edward Snowden
Posted on 11/10/25 at 5:03 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
So that litigation on the federal level can be argued on the state level.
Not as controlling precedent. Generally treated as eye rolling argument by some lawyer from New Orleans that gets denied.
Just telling you how it is, baw.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 5:11 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
Not as controlling precedent. Generally treated as eye rolling argument by some lawyer from New Orleans that gets denied.
If Louisiana doesn’t consider federal precedent and finds opposite of that precedent.. then LA has one F’d up system.
Posted on 11/10/25 at 5:47 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
If Louisiana doesn’t consider federal precedent and finds opposite of that precedent.. then LA has one F’d up system.
Federal decisions on federal statutes have no value for state courts evaluating state statutes. It’s just an opinion from some judge somewhere.
This post was edited on 11/10/25 at 5:47 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News