Here you go.
lawsuits against flock cameras - Bing
Check out what I just created on Bing Image Creator
-
Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! 
Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!
Flock Cameras got you down?
- Thread starter Jimboecv
- Start date
Will be interesting to see how that works out. There's a precedent out there in regards to street photography in that you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy while out and about in public places.
That's always been the case. Want to take street photos? Sure, all day for personal consumption as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Want to monetize your street photos, well, better consider having model releases. Then, there's the situation where you have a paid entry event. Might want to look at the terms on the ticket you purchase. There's public events with children, aka a school festival. Put it up for public consumption, and that means somebody's going to rip them off, republish them for whatever reasons, some nefarious. Regardless of the law, trying to honor parents protecting their kids' images from social media posting, etc. is a sticky wicket.
To expect this not to be used against us, the mean morality level would have to be very high.
Yes, so then how does that apply to the expectation of privacy from a Flock camera?
Because I believe the government doesn't have any right to collect my metadata off a cell system, or my photo off of flock camera, without a warrant and probably cause.
Last edited:
While I agree with your statement about 4A, my experience is that cops won’t do squat unless the revenue versus required effort ratio works in their favor.
I was in a hit and run a few years back. I got the whole thing on dash cam. Chased the guy down and forced him to pull over. While I was standing at his door and on the phone with the cops, the guy took off. Traffic enforcement came and took the information, and that was it. Zero interest in the video, and I never got a call from a detective
Glad you asked because I will explain it to you! The US Supreme Court has ruled that you do NOT have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in public places. However, there is an exception to this referred to as creating a mosaic. What that means is when you take those separate events in public where you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy and put them all together to create a "mosaic" of someone's life then that is overreach and goes beyond what is allowed by the Constitution of the US. The US Supreme Court has created case law on both of these issues and those who study Constitutional Law believe that Flock cameras WILL be ruled unconstitutional once a case reaches the Supreme Court. The reason for this is the fact that the Flock cameras log the location of your vehicle throughout all hours of the night and day and create a "mosaic" hard to replicate short of a tracker being placed on the vehicle which requires a search warrant signed by a judge.
The bigger problem is not just the invasion of privacy but the fact that invasion is completely controlled by a private company. In addition, that private company was paid by taxpayers money to install the cameras on public property. They then turn around and sell that info to various users and keep the profit for themselves rather than reimbursing the County or City for the money they spent. It's a great deal for the crooked billionaires who run the company not so much for the taxpayers in that area.
I agree that this is frustrating but a hit and run is pretty low on the totem pole of crimes in Houston and not something that will have very much manpower dedicated to it. They certainly would NOT assign a Detective to something this minor. While this was probably traumatic to you it is pretty minor considering the crimes they deal with all day. The crime the guy committed is called FSGI (Failure to Stop and Give Information) which is a Class C misdemeanor. A Class C misdemeanor means he would receive a traffic citation. If he gave you his name and insurance information but left before the police arrived then it probably wouldn't even be considered an offense.
I do not think they handled the incident inappropriately. The reason he didn't take the video is most likely because he could tell from the damage what happened. The next reason is that accident forms are sent to the state and there is no way to attach a video. Law Enforcement does NOT make a decision of who is libel for the accident that is decided by the insurance companies or a civil court. The video is needed by them. If the accident resulted in serious bodily injury or death then it would be a different story but in the situation you described it seems they handled it appropriately!
This is my point.
Because Flock cameras are publicly funded by Taxpayers, the data is therefore public, and should thus be available to the Public.
Thanks, the mosaic part is what I've been missing in understanding how this differs. Trying to google it all leads to way too many tin foil hat sites and not anything that spells it out like you've done here. Much appreciated.