[HN Gopher] Cities panic over having to release mass surveillanc...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Cities panic over having to release mass surveillance recordings
        
       Author : pavel_lishin
       Score  : 154 points
       Date   : 2025-11-17 17:23 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (neuburger.substack.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (neuburger.substack.com)
        
       | tptacek wrote:
       | They're not panicking about this in Illinois, because Illinois
       | exempts raw ALPR footage from FOIA.
       | 
       | This page is blogspam, though.
        
         | pavel_lishin wrote:
         | Both good points; I should have linked the original post at
         | https://neuburger.substack.com/p/cities-panic-over-having-to...
        
           | dang wrote:
           | Changed above from
           | https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2025/11/cities-panic-over-
           | ha.... Thanks!
        
       | dedup-com wrote:
       | It must be said that "cities", as used in this piece, is a rather
       | generous term. Sedro-Woolley has 13K residents. Stanwood has 9K.
       | They probably don't have enough people on payroll to handle FOA
       | requests, hence "panic".
        
         | mixmastamyk wrote:
         | Are they not allowed to charge a service fee?
        
           | tptacek wrote:
           | I don't know about WA, but not, in any practical sense, in
           | IL.
        
           | barbazoo wrote:
           | If they actually don't have the staff to do it, like I can
           | imagine in small municipalities, then a fee wouldn't help
           | either unless it allows for surge pricing that actually
           | reduces the demand.
        
             | stemlord wrote:
             | they can reroute the money they were paying for Flock with
        
             | butvacuum wrote:
             | FOIA allows for "reasonable costs." For example requesting
             | a copy of Obama's birth certificate is something like $20.
             | 
             | There's a real problem though- anybody (might need to be a
             | US citizen) can FOIA any document anywhere in the US that's
             | not excluded. When they can punt you to the paywall and
             | then reply with a generic reply to a birth cert it's one
             | thing.
             | 
             | When you have to actually find people to do the work of
             | reviewing _ALL_ video footage as $small_fraction of
             | 200million people request every second of recorded footage
             | from every camera... You 're(as a city) kinda screwed. If
             | they claim privacy they have to be able to prove it but can
             | charge slightly more. But, if they don't then they have to
             | provide the specific request (possibly a little more- say
             | 1hr segments) at a cost representative of the labor
             | involved... Which doesn't include the cost of trying to
             | staff a FOIA center larger than your city.
        
           | floatrock wrote:
           | Service fees is the counter-tactic here.
           | 
           | If it takes the city clerk multiple hours to assemble and
           | distribute the video clips and time gets billed to
           | $1k/request because it's being done in the most inefficient,
           | asinine way, well, how many FOIA requests really have $1k of
           | urgency behind them?
           | 
           | I don't know enough about municipal billing to know how
           | defensible that is, but it's definitely one of the escalation
           | paths here.
        
             | tptacek wrote:
             | Not very defensible. Wherever you are, this is probably
             | fairly settled law. In Illinois, playing games with fees
             | for non-commercial requests is likely to land you in a suit
             | with fee recovery for the plaintiff and thus good legal
             | representation on contingency.
        
               | trollbridge wrote:
               | It would seem a reasonable case to make that their vendor
               | should be able to assist them in these data requests,
               | too, particularly if the vendor were profiting from the
               | data. My own opinion is that vendors who collect data
               | from governments like this should be subject to foia
               | themselves.
        
               | tptacek wrote:
               | Again I can speak only for Illinois (and 'chaps is more
               | authoritative than I am) but for the most part you're not
               | going to be axiomatically deriving what you can do with
               | FOIA; most permutations of what can be done have already
               | been attempted, and there's really rich case law. It's
               | super easy to FOIA things! Lots of relatively normie
               | people use FOIA. So FOIA lawyers have seen some shit.
               | 
               | Generally I'd predict that it's unlikely that you'll be
               | able to do anything with a FOIA law to compel a vendor to
               | do anything directly.
        
               | butvacuum wrote:
               | The real one is people coming up with minor, but
               | recognized, reasons to request footage from different
               | cameras.
               | 
               | Most everything is covered, as you mentioned. But there's
               | a huge difference between things like Obama's birth
               | cert(canned reply after paying the fee), and the entire
               | US populations worth of people requesting a single 5min
               | segment from a camera... But everybody wants a different
               | camera, date, and time.
               | 
               | I suspect an organized campaign will sink the
               | cities/flock, or they'll make the streams public and not
               | retain anything. Public streams with no retention is how
               | TXDOT handled this.
        
               | tptacek wrote:
               | It's not really meaningfully different than existing
               | closed-circuit cameras and bodycams, except for the ALPR
               | plate/ID records they create, which states are simply
               | going to exempt from FOIA, as Illinois did.
        
             | butvacuum wrote:
             | This gets shot down PDQ. A significant case of this was a
             | County charging $0.50/page for a title company requesting a
             | CD of all their records (note: they're digital) going back
             | a large length of time. The judge over the lawsuit ruled
             | they could only charge costs (note, this isn't wishy washy
             | 'going rate'- they have to expose salaries and actual times
             | and the employees involved can be asked directly, under
             | oath) which amounted to $100/per CD/DVD.
             | 
             | Kind of a teeth grinding win though, because title
             | companies are absolute scum.
        
             | vel0city wrote:
             | I'm reminded of the case of a recorder's office in Ohio
             | charging $2 per page for copies of public documents.
             | NYTimes made a funny dramatization of a transcript from
             | that case, pretty good.
             | 
             | What Is a Photocopier?
             | 
             | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE
        
         | qchris wrote:
         | You know, in hockey there's sometimes a saying that "if you're
         | too small to carry your gear bag, you're too small to play
         | hockey." Feels like there might be some kind of moral lesson
         | there for this situation.
        
           | some_random wrote:
           | Hockey is a game, governing is not.
        
             | hrimfaxi wrote:
             | If the local governing body is too small to handle the
             | requirements of governance, what then? Laws can be broken
             | just because there are too few clerks?
        
               | lazide wrote:
               | Even big cities (and companies!) do this all the time.
               | 
               | "Oh, sorry, we are dealing with unusually high wait
               | times. The current wait time is 8 hours" type stuff.
               | 
               | Malicious compliance isn't just for individuals!
        
               | kevin_thibedeau wrote:
               | My city of 200K provided me with redacted bodycam video a
               | month _after_ the defendant 's sham trial. The police are
               | just too busy you see.
        
               | some_random wrote:
               | I really don't know, it's a difficult question. In this
               | case I agree with most people here on HN that these sorts
               | of mass surveillance tools are not desirable but the
               | reason why is not "because the city is too small to
               | handle FOIA requests".
               | 
               | For another example, some rural localities want to
               | restrict drone usage, but actually enforcing that is
               | expensive and difficult. What's the solution? I really
               | don't know.
        
               | butvacuum wrote:
               | _winners bell SFX_
               | 
               | I seem to recall FOIA provides pathways for overloaded
               | clerks in situations where there's mass requests. But, it
               | only grants an extended period in which to respond (eg,
               | 14 days instead of 48hrs). But, you can take escalate
               | with the State government like you can with denied
               | requests.
               | 
               | This is tinted with my knowledge of my Locaal (long a),
               | and the areas I've made FOIA requests with.
               | 
               | And, turns out if you want to affect change- you have to
               | make the bureaucrats care- Not the officials.
        
               | potato3732842 wrote:
               | Have less laws then.
               | 
               | You literally can't be a high touch, high jackboot,
               | administrative state unless you have enough wealth to
               | skim off it to run your enforcing operation.
               | 
               | There's a reason that places with less wealth to dip into
               | are either more hands off or go full speed trap town to
               | pay for it all.
        
               | seanmcdirmid wrote:
               | If they can't afford to provide the service, then they
               | can't afford to provide the service. In this case, they
               | simply can't afford to video anything that would require
               | redaction for FOIA requests. Stanwood joining with Camano
               | Island or Marrysville, it's still a rural area that can't
               | afford it.
        
             | darkwizard42 wrote:
             | Using invasive surveillance tech to govern is not needed
             | then. If you can't handle the full service (on both ends)
             | of the technology, then you can't deploy it and have to use
             | regular old police work or legacy techniques to enforce it.
             | 
             | Using this tech is not mandatory to have governance.
        
             | johnnyanmac wrote:
             | Not sure I can agree anymore in 2025. Maybe in 2027,
             | hopefully.
        
         | th0ma5 wrote:
         | FOA requests are a part of the total cost of ownership of these
         | products. At some point a vendor, the state, a consultancy was
         | negligent in this fact, and we should not entertain ideas of
         | minimizing the issues I agree. Cities is the correct term,
         | below that size are villages and hamlets and if they are
         | incorporated they are a city.
        
       | AdamJacobMuller wrote:
       | I don't understand the correlation here, why does having to
       | release the footage mean that the cities are shutting down the
       | systems?
       | 
       | It seems like they could simply comply with the requirement that
       | footage is public and they can/must share that footage as part of
       | the FOIA process, I don't see much of a downside there and it
       | seems like something which most police departments and
       | municipalities are already doing with footage from other
       | scenarios like body cameras?
        
         | jolmg wrote:
         | My 2 cents: Police body cameras capture events at random
         | locations. These other cameras are fixed in place and can more
         | reliably be used to stalk people.
        
           | 01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote:
           | There's also tons of these. I feel like I don't see a police
           | cruiser every time I drive somewhere, but I do pass by a
           | couple surveillance cameras.
           | 
           | If I assume that 1/3rd of my city's sworn officers are on
           | duty at any time, there's literally more cameras than
           | officers around town.
        
         | mc32 wrote:
         | Or as Thomas stated elsewhere in this thread, they can follow
         | Illinois and just exempt ALPRs from FOIA reach.
         | 
         | ALPR FOIAs have the potential problem of abuse by stalkers and
         | others wanting to track someone (imagine "Hollywood"
         | personaes.)
         | 
         | It'd be a bad precedent to follow, but they could. I wonder
         | what Tiburon will be doing. They've had ALPRs since forever as
         | they only have one road in and one road out, so it's easy for
         | them to do.
        
           | tptacek wrote:
           | Just raw footage and identifying information from cars, if I
           | remember right. You can still make FOIA requests of data the
           | PD keeps on hand from Flock searches.
           | 
           | There is an interesting thing happening in FOIA law here in
           | WA (you'd never notice it from this spammy article, though).
           | A pretty common FOIA exemption is for data not managed by a
           | public body, but via some commercial vendor. FOIA generally
           | only allows you to demand production of (1) actual documents
           | that (2) the public body has (3) on hand (or are generally
           | deemed to have on hand, such as email records).
           | 
           | So it's pretty legally dubious that you can use FOIA to
           | compel production _from Flock_ (you can probably compel, from
           | the public body, any number of reports Flock can generate ---
           | we 've done that here for our Flock network and sharing
           | configurations, for instance).
           | 
           | Here it sounds like a WA judge might be saying that some
           | corpus of data _Flock_ maintains is effectively public data.
           | If that 's the case, that's a novel interpretation.
        
             | trollbridge wrote:
             | If their data is 100% sourced from public data, its public
             | data.
        
               | tptacek wrote:
               | That is not remotely how it works in Illinois. It's not
               | even how _public data held by public bodies_ works: you
               | can generally only compel production of specific
               | documents that already exist.
        
           | pavel_lishin wrote:
           | > _ALPR FOIAs have the potential problem of abuse by stalkers
           | and others wanting to track someone (imagine "Hollywood"
           | personaes.)_
           | 
           | Not potential problems, actual existing problems:
           | https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2025/05/she-got-abortion-so-
           | te...
        
             | tptacek wrote:
             | Worth being specific here: the problem this page is
             | discussing isn't ALPRs per se, but automatic ALPR data
             | sharing.
        
           | 8note wrote:
           | > ALPR FOIAs have the potential problem of abuse by stalkers
           | and others wanting to track someone (imagine "Hollywood"
           | personaes.)
           | 
           | the stalker is gonna be a cop with full access to that data
           | though. if its good enough to be in cops hands, who are
           | utterly unaccountable to anyone, its safe enough to be in the
           | general public's too.
        
         | plorg wrote:
         | They may feel (or their counsel may suggest) that it presents
         | more of a legal risk than it's worth. A prudent city government
         | would have evaluated this _before_ installing such equipment,
         | but maybe we can be generous and imagine that being subject to
         | such litigation revealed a mismatch between their legal
         | evaluation and the judiciary 's.
        
         | wan23 wrote:
         | Maybe think about it narrowed down to an individual level -
         | maybe you installed a camera or two around your property for
         | whatever useful reasons like monitoring your children, and then
         | later you find out that you are required to share all of your
         | footage with some other entity (e.g. the police) in a way you
         | did not sign up for. Would you choose to release your footage,
         | or would you take the cameras down?
        
       | belorn wrote:
       | Here in Sweden, the use of license plate scanners has become the
       | norm for basically all parking houses, bridge tolls and road
       | tolls. Even if you don't install the app or become a "member" of
       | whatever system they are using, the license plate scanners is
       | still used to detect when you enter or leave, and in some cases
       | they automatically look up your home address to send you the bill
       | with zero interaction with the driver. Even if they offer
       | alternative ways to pay, by for example sms, it still uses the
       | license plate scanner when you leave.
       | 
       | The only political party to even mention this as a problem was
       | the pirate party back 15 years ago, and even then it never became
       | a major issue that got discussed. Like paying with credit cards
       | rather than physical cash, people see it as convenience or just
       | as the way things now work.
        
         | 0_____0 wrote:
         | Looking for context here: how do Swedes view their government?
         | Do they feel represented by, it, trust their governments etc.?
         | 
         | My perception as a USian in a coastal, progressive state, is
         | that trust in government is quite low. Municipal and county
         | governments do OK, but federal and to some degree state
         | governments seems to have priorities that are wildly divergent
         | from our own.
        
           | tptacek wrote:
           | I'm in Chicagoland (in Oak Park, directly adjacent to the
           | west side of Chicago) and it literally depends on which
           | suburb you're in. Oak Park is hostile to ALPRs. Berwyn, our
           | neighbor to the south, and River Forest, to the west, are
           | carpeted with them. They're there because people want them.
        
             | 0_____0 wrote:
             | Found this amazing redlining map. I think I've highlighted
             | Berwyn. I don't have knowledge to contextualize the map but
             | I'm curious if any patterns from the HOLC map are strongly
             | present in your area now.
             | 
             | https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/map/IL/Chicago/
             | a...
        
               | tptacek wrote:
               | You don't want to get me started on this.
        
               | salawat wrote:
               | _places soapbox_
        
           | LadyCailin wrote:
           | I can't speak to Swedes, but as an American Norwegian, I can
           | say that the level of trust in Scandinavian is WAY higher
           | than in the US. It's not utopia, of course, (see Chat
           | Control, for instance) but you really can trust the
           | government here to take care of things when it goes off the
           | rails for whatever reason.
        
           | amarant wrote:
           | First actual swede to reply here it seems!
           | 
           | It's not a very simple question to answer, but I'll do my
           | best. In general terms, most Swedes trust the government and
           | all government agencies to do their job in a fair and just
           | way, barring the occasional case of incompetence. When a
           | Swede say they don't trust the government, in my experience,
           | they typically mean that they disagree with the current
           | government on matters of policy, not that they suspect it of
           | corruption.
           | 
           | I myself don't trust the current government, in that I think
           | they will likely make the wrong decisions on important
           | matters, I think they have the wrong priorities, and their
           | argumentation is often insincere. I do not, however, suspect
           | them of anything more nefarious than engaging in right-wing
           | populism(by Swedish standards, our default is considerably
           | further left than America's)
           | 
           | A coup attempt by a government official in Sweden, such as we
           | have seen in the USA and Brazil among other places recently,
           | seems to me about as likely as our current prime minister
           | turning out to be a literal lizard-man.
           | 
           | Do note that I'm speaking rather broadly here, and only about
           | my perception of the majority of Swedes. I have ties to
           | northern Sweden and Stockholm, but very few to the south, so
           | regional variance might also be a factor to consider. Most
           | Swedes live in the south, where my connections are few.
           | 
           | Hope this sheds some light for you!
        
             | amarant wrote:
             | I felt a need to expand on this. In Sweden, the various
             | agencies are independent from the elected politicians to
             | some degree. This means that while I personally do not
             | trust the current government, I do still trust, for
             | example, the tax agency.
             | 
             | The Swedish tax agency is very different from the American
             | IRS, or at least the impression I have of the irs as a
             | Swede who's never been to the USA for longer than it takes
             | to switch flights, but consumes a likely unhealthy amount
             | of social media which is typically full of Americans.
             | 
             | In Sweden, the tax authority kinda do your tax fillings for
             | you. They send them to you electronically once per year,
             | and give you the chance to correct any inaccuracies, add
             | any information they might have missed etc, and then sign
             | the final result.
             | 
             | I don't think I'm the only one who signs those declarations
             | without even reading them. Regardless of who is currently
             | prime minister, the tax agency typically get it right, and
             | I trust them enough to just accept what they say, and
             | attach my legally binding signature without reading.
             | 
             | I'd estimate about 95% of my Swedish friends do the same.
        
         | maxeda wrote:
         | Unlike toll roads and parking lot entrances it seems like these
         | cameras are being installed for the sole purpose of
         | surveillance and tracking peoples movements.
        
         | PrairieFire wrote:
         | Same is true in Iceland. It's just the established norm. Much
         | less costly vs installing gates and barriers and payment
         | terminals and easier to add paid parking to non traditional
         | locations where constricting entry/exit to barrier'ed lanes
         | would be a challenge or impossible. Shifting the payment
         | experience to the user's smartphone. It's still a bit foreign
         | to visitors from places where this isn't the norm but for
         | Iceland and Icelanders it works well and is a non issue.
         | 
         | To be fair, the relationship between the Icelandic people and
         | their government and their corporate class is wildly different
         | vs that in the US in 2025 to say the least.
        
         | estimator7292 wrote:
         | My last job paid for parking in one of these places. When the
         | CEO stopped paying (long, very stupid story) without telling
         | us, the parking company sent me, personally, to collections
         | despite having zero responsibility to or interaction with these
         | people.
        
         | Ajedi32 wrote:
         | Unless you implement a way of stopping people from leaving
         | until they pay (which is really expensive and inefficient),
         | collecting data on who owes you money is sort of unavoidable,
         | no? It's only when that data starts getting collected en masse
         | for no good reason and retained ~forever that we start to run
         | into problems.
        
         | m463 wrote:
         | In the US a lot of the bridge tolls are automated, or became
         | automated during the pandemic. With no going back.
         | 
         | You either have to create and account and register your
         | vehicles by license plate, or you get a toll in the mail that
         | must be paid either by mail or online.
         | 
         | I got behind on a few of these and got fined, I think maybe 5x
         | the price tacked on.
         | 
         | I would love to just pay in cash each time I use an
         | infrequenlty-crossed bridge.
        
           | potato3732842 wrote:
           | Toll collection in most states used to be a mostly graft
           | operation. They'd make insane salaries for what they did and
           | the jobs would be handed out based on political connections.
           | Basically welfare for the deadbead family members of the
           | politically useful. In my state they had a union and it took
           | forever to get rid of them. When they did get rid of them the
           | tolls basically halved for no change in revenue because
           | that's how much cash was going missing.
        
         | thousand_nights wrote:
         | doesn't sweden just.. list everyone's full name, address, job,
         | birthday, age and stuff on a public website?
         | 
         | i always found this so weird, it's like a stalker's paradise
        
         | testing22321 wrote:
         | This made it interesting for me driving through Europe with my
         | Canadian-plated vehicle.
         | 
         | Plenty of boom gates did not open
        
       | chasil wrote:
       | You can find installed Flock cameras around the world with this
       | site:
       | 
       | https://deflock.me/
        
         | kevin_thibedeau wrote:
         | This is missing the Lowes and Home Depot security cameras.
        
           | chasil wrote:
           | I didn't know that these stores were doing this.
           | 
           | https://flowingdata.com/2025/08/08/lowes-and-home-depot-
           | are-...
        
           | aerostable_slug wrote:
           | It shows the Lowes & HD cameras near me. The map depends upon
           | volunteers to enter data IIRC.
        
       | mensetmanusman wrote:
       | The truth can hurt, law doesn't victimize someone for being held
       | accountable.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-11-17 23:01 UTC)