Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by themaninthedark | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

themaninthedark·

Someone should start a surveillance company and put up their cameras pointed at the politicians houses.

If they then try to get them taken down using legal action they could sue under equal protection clause.

Edit add: Make data stream of cameras public for general population but charge if LEO or aggregate data search.

View on HN

I've done a lot of thinking on this, even crowdsourcing the coverage with people standing on sidewalks using their phones with a specific app, which collects similar data. Stand near the court house, politicians homes. However Flock tends to say that the people that contract them own the data to get around a lot of the liabilities, so they themselves "don't own the data". That is the hard part to emulate as a citizen who doesn't have same protections as a cop or city council.

I'm going off personal research though so I could be wrong.

As a company there may be liability to collecting the data, not sure. But as a private person as long as you are recording in public and not in a restricted space, you have a right to do so.

How does the claim that the people whom they contract with own the data square with Flock sharing data with Federal government and not disabling cameras when contract ends.

https://youtube.com/shorts/t_ewIN7YhYI?is=08KRHQK3AMYA0FJn

It would seem that the cities would be able to sue Flock in these cases since Flock is accessing their data without authorization. I am sure that there are some state laws that mirror the CFFA...Google tells me all 50 have something.

That would be a fun avenue for someone motivated to pursue.

Edit add: You could do the same as Flock. Each person uploads/streams their videos and they own it, data resides in their data bucket. You are only providing extra analysis of their(and everyone's in aggregate) data...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com