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.
replyFlock 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.
replyDoes Flock do some kind of P2P dance to avoid the data transiting their systems?
Legally how does it work if I upload a file to Google Docs and then share it with my contacts? Is Google then a data brokerage for my files?
replyThey 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.
replyPresumably 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.
replyEquivocation. My stock broker doesn't own my stocks either, they merely hold my assets in a brokerage account.
replyI 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.
replyThis 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?
And you would (rightfully) be angered if your stock broker sold your shares and pocketed the proceeds, because you own them.
replySo… 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”?
replydeleted
replyIf Flock's customers, using Flock's infrastructure or tooling, can share data with each other, that would be bad.
replyI'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.