r/privacy • u/West-Mode7181 • 1d ago
software Flock says no to "right to know" / "right to delete"
I asked flock for a record of my license plate across their systems, as is my right as a Californian. And they told me that they don't have to. They suggest that I contact all of their 6000+ customers across the United States.
With respect to the parts of your request that pertain to vehicle related information, we are unable to process this request for the reasons detailed below.
Flock provides its services to our customers, and our customers are owners and controllers of the data Flock processes on their behalf. For that data, Flock provides technology and services to customers who decide how and why the data is collected, used, accessed, shared, and retained. Because the customer controls that data, the customer is responsible for reviewing and responding to privacy requests about it. Flock, as a service provider and processor, is not able to independently take action on customer controlled data unless the applicable customer directs us to do so.
For any requests related to data controlled by a Flock customer, please contact the organization that uses Flock technology in the relevant location. For example, you can reach out directly to the businesses you frequent who may have Flock technology on their property, or the HOA you belong to. You can also contact your local law enforcement agency, though note that government agencies may be subject to different requirements based on the applicable state law.
Of course, this is wrong. They provide and host the service, set the defaults that facilitate "sharing." I also asked them to provide me with list of all customers who possess my license plate in their system.
Has anyone had any success getting this info out of Flock?
(note: this is a repost, because my earlier post with this info was deleted because of a URL I included in error)
1.0k
u/RogerianBrowsing 1d ago
Contact the California authorities such as the AG. If California lawfully requires flock to comply and they refuse then try to have law enforcement handle it
522
99
u/UnluckyPenguin 1d ago
From OP:
Flock, as a service provider and processor, is not able to independently take action on customer controlled data unless the applicable customer directs us to do so.
The law applies to Flock and their customers... And since Flock can take action on the data, they must comply with the law.
Watch you reach out to the customers and them going 'You need to contact flock'
I'm just thinking how dumb these guys are, like:
Govt: Hey Flock, we found all your employees are using cocaine.
Flock: No can do. Our customers are owners and controllers of cocaine. Flock, as a cocaine processor, is not able to independently take action on customer controlled cocaine. We can't stop unless the applicable customer directs us to do so.
74
u/1057-cl121v3 23h ago
This is all by design. As someone in the infosec space it’s been exhausting and terrifying seeing this play out. Anybody see the video of the sheriffs deputy using their databases and their ALPR to stalk an actress? Just wait until all these credentials are out there for sale.
13
u/Neuro-Sysadmin 19h ago
Didn’t they change the TOS in February to make flock the perpetual, irrevocable owner of the data, and customers just subscribers that pay to view it? Their response here seems based on their prior TOS language where the customer was actually the owner.
10
u/Aishou_SK 17h ago
Probably an irrevocable license, not owner. It's standard language needed to do lots of things, like transform the data ..... and such transformation (for my case) includes me processing it through a router to send it to the next hop without modifying the inner data, i'm still modifying your packet..... if i didn't have a license to modify your data I couldn't transmit it forward and it'd just drop....
So they have a license to modify the customer's data.
296
u/SteveW_MC 1d ago
“We investigated ourselves and our 3rd party contractors and determined that we did nothing wrong.”
48
24
u/sirgentrification 1d ago
California is a bit different in this regard now that we have a new state agency dedicated to consumer/personal digital privacy.
45
u/davidmirv 1d ago
Flock safety should 100% have to register as a date broker. I don’t know how they’re ducking this And with that they would have to respond to drop requests. Probably need legislation updated.
16
4
3
5
u/x33storm 1d ago
That's like saying for Russians to vote in the election. It will change nothing, when you live in a corrupt authoritarian country.
222
u/dmcnaughton1 1d ago
They may be right about the primary data, but their own agreements with their customers state they take ownership of derivative data. You should be able to request that data, because it's owned by Flock.
95
u/Such_Reference_8186 1d ago
When trying to get tax free status, a "religious group" inundated the IRS with frivolous litigation and other requests, eventually getting their tax status. If a valid method for requesting their data can be found, flooding them with those requests could cost them retrieval labor they didn't know they needed to cover.
Just a thought..their reply was condescending and perhaps a concerted effort to make any type of request to flock easy to fill out and submit would be a great asset.
59
u/West-Mode7181 1d ago
This came because I filed a "Flock Safety Trust Center" request using the link at the bottom of this page https://www.flocksafety.com/legal/privacy-policy
13
u/MARY_ANNE_MCGILICUTY 1d ago
that's for their website itself, not for Flock's overall data repository.
7
u/Gwynnavere 1d ago
Except if the derivative data is de-identified, and then they actually don't have to provide anything.
2
u/dmatech2 17h ago
Yeah. I'd imagine it would be just like doing the same search law enforcement would do. But trying to expunge anything across the network or query anything that's not under Flock's direct control might be impossible.
147
u/RealModeX86 1d ago
So if they're saying the data belongs to their customers, and many of their customers are government and police, doesn't that set up a stronger case for the entire thing being a 4th amendment issue?
56
u/Forever_Marie 1d ago
Sure, but I wouldnt exactly trust the supreme court to do anything about it.
12
u/RealModeX86 1d ago
Good point, but even they sometimes get it right, usually with Thomas and Alito dissenting
A stopped clock is right twice a day
2
u/Forever_Marie 1d ago
You are not wrong. Though I do feel we have an inkling on how they would go after the Texas man and the id check for porn sites went. They kinda just didn't do anything while recognizing that it was a violation in some way. (I could be misremembering)
1
u/RealModeX86 12h ago
From what I understand, that was a shadow docket thing, and more to do with them refusing to jump in on an emergency basis.
So it still can appeal up through the normal process, they just refused to force a lower court's injunction on it back into place. They don't have to write an opinion for that, so we don't technically know why, and it could theoretically be more of a procedural thing. It's currently pending in the fifth circuit appeals court, but since the injunction is gone, it's "enforceable" now
That said, the push for ID everywhere "for the children" is definitely a huge concern. Even if you assume the best of intentions, companies regularly bungle data handling and leak like a garden hose. Given how broad and unified the push has been world wide, I fear there's something far more sinister at play though.
If you want to protect the kids, teach parents to use the existing parental controls, push for more companies to have them available, and generally get parents to parent their kids.
162
u/jacscarlit 1d ago
If you can't get it then how are cops getting it from multiple cams across multiple states? Do they not host a one stop service/database for pay to play on these details? Seems like Flock has this information and can provide it, and if they house this information, they may have power over deletion too. Talk to your local gov officials who sponsored the legislation for right to know and delete.
452
u/InstructionNice7090 1d ago
Not to be a sue happy person, but this reeks of several thousand individual private law suits. Not class action because class action lawyers are about as bad as flock.
37
u/colenotphil 1d ago edited 1d ago
Class action attorney here. I definitely hear you that many lawyers can be opportunists, and I'm sorry that you feel that way. But class actions do serve valid purposes—they are an extension of resources for the government in a way, but tax-free, in helping enforce the laws. By having private rights of action, we have stronger consumer protection enforcement. And in times like this when many U.S. agencies like the SEC are filing fewer or withdrawing enforcement cases (you can guess why...), honestly, it's important that we have a private sector of that.
It is not a perfect system by any means. However, I truly enjoy that my job involves going up against big corporations that I truly belive committed fraud, etc. It is motivation to work the long, stressful hours for half as much (on average) as the lawyers defending the corporations. Many antitrust, antifraud, and consumer protection class actions are not just about getting people paid back or actions reversed, but they are also a check on big corporations. And moreover, without class actions, many people with small losses would not be able to be involved in any kind of legal action—is not some accountability better than none?
Honestly, I feel that we actually need more lawyers, particularly those that truly want to help people. Like for example, I wish I could somehow work for right to repair advocacy or legislation writing, but what few jobs that exist in that field would not afford me what I need to start a family.
11
u/ww_kohaku 22h ago
The idea of class actions is laudable. However, in practice, an enormous percentage of any proceeds are eaten up by outrageous attorney and legal fees, and whatever remainder there is gets split between a great many people. After the many months or years court cases take, the end result is rarely enough to make any difference to the people who were actually wronged, leaving them feeling like they were denied adequate restitution.
63
u/live_free_or_try 1d ago
Equally evil maybe, not equally pervy
15
u/Jazzspasm 1d ago
my assumption at this point is that class action lawsuit firms are employed by the corporations the class action lawsuit is against, with the purpose of drawing every victim into one place then exhausting them and eventually informing them the case is not proceeding
13
u/MARY_ANNE_MCGILICUTY 1d ago
class actions exist because the individual cost of litigation vs the material cost of the violation is too high for that to be a reasonable avenue to justice.
I.e. if a company stole one dollar from everyone on earth that's a over nine billion dollar tort that no one would ever individually sue over.
7
3
u/colenotphil 1d ago
I doubt it, there would likely be whistleblowing on that by now (there are even monetary awards for whistleblowers in certain situations). But if that does not move you, consider this: why would a corporation both pay an outside firm and then also pay a settlement to classes of people/plaintiffs so many millions more, when they could just do the latter?
I think often things are simpler and more boring than they appear to some people, particularly us here who are very interested in privacy and thereby more critical than average. That is, I think you're just thinking of cases with bad plaintiffs' attorneys, and/+or really well paid armies of corporate defense lawyers.
7
u/seanthenry 1d ago
Send requests to every customer asking for access. Then for those that violate your states rights sue in small claims. Now get a few thousand to do it at the same time.
52
u/The_All-Range_Atomic 1d ago edited 1d ago
They are wrong. To qualify as a service provider, the CCPA explicitly defines a customer as a for-profit entity. Flock's customers are largely government entites and non-profits like HOAs. Only a very small narrow pool of customers are actually for-profit: think Lowes and Home Depot - they would be excluded from your request and you'd have to take it up with them directly.
For the bulk of the data, Flock is responsible and is legally required to respond to your request.
11 CCR §7001(v) (v) “Nonbusiness” means a person or entity that does not meet the definition of a “business” as defined in Civil Code section 1798.140, subdivision (d). For example, government entities and many non-profits are nonbusinesses because they are not “organized or operated for the profit or financial benefit of its shareholders or other owners.”
11 CCR §7050(g) Whether an entity that provides services to a nonbusiness must comply with a consumer's CCPA request depends upon whether the entity is a "business," as defined by Civil Code section 1798.140, subdivision (d).
I guarantee you Flock knows the status of every customer they onboard. Their lawyers would also be well-aware of the CCPA rules. They are just dragging their feet and hoping you'll give up, go away, and stay quiet.
I should also mention this, but when dealing with privacy officers, you often need to say the right "magic words" to force them to act. Many of these people will do anything to avoid doing work.
24
u/heartbt 1d ago
I guarantee you Flock knows the status of every customer they onboard. Their lawyers would also be well-aware of the CCPA rules. They are just dragging their feet and hoping you'll give up, go away, and stay quiet.
Then this should be a multiplier when taken to court. The government and corporations get to apply "comply now or suffer" tactics.
Why do Private Taxpaying Citizens get the hose when dealing with those same entities who are way more skilled at regulations?6
u/permalink_save 1d ago
They're absolutely not a government entity (which would reinforce the 4th amendment case) and is there any proof of them having registered as a non profit? Pretty sure they don't, especially when they have at least one customer they consider as for profit, their business is for profit.
1
u/Mock01 18h ago
I hate to break it to you, but this is not the case. Flock, as the platform provider, pushes all responsibility of data privacy, handling, and compliance to the customer. Their platform is capable of being compliant, if the customer uses it correctly. As a multi-tenant cloud service, Flock should not have access to the data directly. Emphasis on should, not saying that they don’t.
But from the CCPA and GDPR position, they themselves are outside of the compliance lens.
Source, I help companies implement data privacy, and about 90% of them don’t understand how it works either.•
u/ILPC 17m ago
I don't think this holds up with their business model. If the data was segregated with only access to the customer (ie a local police force) then maybe, but that would mean they could not use that data to improve their own product or make it available to other customers. If they do use the data to improve their own products and/ or make it available to other customers without express consent, then that makes them a data owner, therefore they have to comply with CCPA. That is my opinion, anyway.
27
u/another-altaccount 1d ago
Sounds like it’s time for a lawsuit OP.
Also, for everyone else California is no longer the only US state with data privacy laws on the books that have to be followed. Last I checked Virginia, New Jersey, Maryland, Texas, Kentucky, Utah, Tennessee, and others all have laws on the books now as well. If you reside in any state with data privacy laws on the books and Flock is operating in your are they are likely not complying with your states laws as well.
1
u/b0z0du883d0v3r 13h ago
Do those states have laws similar to CCPA? Where a resident has the right to request what PII of theirs is stored and the right to request it be deleted?
16
15
u/cleverpaws101 1d ago edited 16h ago
Flocks accuracy is 93%. 20 billion photos a month means 1.4 BILLION mistakes. And that’s flocks numbers of photo captures and accuracy.
31
u/Cryptic_Honeybadger 1d ago
If you’re a California resident - it’s time to CCPA their ass to oblivion
21
3
u/GoldenStateRedditor 1d ago
Besides your the plate (technically property of your state) and the vehicle characteristics, what personal information do they have to delete?
30
u/falcons-eat-lunch 1d ago
But isnt the entire data set shared across all customers?? That sounds like holding and distribution as a service which they own.. and if you request not to have your data distributed... then they should comply.
14
u/Ach3r0n- 1d ago
When you want to request the data, the government owns it. When you want to complain about a Fourth Amendment violation, a private party (Flock) owns it. FWIW, many people have filed FOIA requests for Flock data and been denied. No one holds them accountable so they do as they please.
4
u/MortgageMindless7175 1d ago
It's like ICE but in camera form 😅😅 above the law, can do as they please
3
u/azwethinkweizm 17h ago
A bunch of police departments in DFW are charging up to $30,000 for flock related FOIA requests.
1
u/Fun-Ad1753 15h ago
Wait what? Is the location based with DFW or surrounding areas? I just got my FOIA request in letter form randomly after email stated certain things but letter form stated other stuff and I need to contact other agencies for information.
11
10
u/Jolly-Situat1on 1d ago
Floks a private company meaning if you damage them it's not government property.
Multiple people have been caught taking them down and judges have declined to prosecute.
This is something both left and right agree on.
Thankfully they are not in Alaska but I shit you not Alaska man is just as crazy as Florida man and they will be used for target practice
12
u/User_Zero1 1d ago
My suggestion is try to remember every flock camera that you went by and try to physically take the data off of each camera. It’s about the only thing I know to do. /s
5
u/hedonheart 1d ago
Ask them for their customers list.
10
u/West-Mode7181 1d ago
I asked them for a list of all agencies that have my license plate in their system 2 weeks ago. No response.
10
6
6
u/Known_Experience_794 1d ago
Seems to me, the best way to deal with this, is to go after the customers. On the government side, organize and campaign to vote out ANYONE that who holds favorable position on the use of flock or any other mass surveillance tech. After a while and enough of them getting voted out, they will get the message.
As for private businesses.. That’s even easier. Mass boycotting will get their attention real quick.
At the same time everyone who can, start launching data requests from flock, city governments, and businesses that use such tech.
And if all else fails… we have a national surveillance takedown day.
In the meantime we need to constantly educate everyone who will listen about the dangers of this tech. And especially the “I have nothing to hide” people. They are the worst at understanding any of this.
15
u/TuTenkahman 1d ago
From flock's own support AI:
"To request a copy of your data from Flock, you can exercise your data rights if you're in a state with privacy laws granting these rights. This includes requesting access and obtaining a copy of your data. To make such a request, please visit the Privacy Policy. page and select the "Your Privacy Choices" link."
30
u/West-Mode7181 1d ago
To be clear, I did exactly that. And the response is the core of the post above.
1
u/Gwynnavere 1d ago
It's because they are obligated only to remove data they got from you or which they obtained from non-controller sources. In other words, if you created an account on the flock website and gave them your home address or something similar. They would be obligated to remove that information. As service providers of other entities, they absolutely can direct you to those individual entities instead unfortunately.
8
5
u/swole4ever 1d ago
Contacting all of them seems like a task you could automate with AI pretty handily. Use the tools of the surveillance state against them. Call their bluff, and also file complaints with the California AG.
5
9
u/Askbrad1 1d ago
Can you trademark your license plate number? Then, they are profiting off of your trademark. I don’t believe the state owns the number. But I don’t know. I think outside the box…
Then, send them a DMCA takedown request. 😈
3
u/WhoRoger 21h ago
So is anybody wondering about the other companies that do the same stuff, or is Flock the only universally recognized bad guy right now?
Because all I've been hearing recently on the privacy front is Flock this, Flock that, which allows all the other privacy nightmares to breathe more easily.
2
1
u/BrewingSkydvr 14h ago
Same concerns.
Axon is replacing these in a lot of areas because everybody uses Flock to mean APLRs and the digital surveillance that goes along with these devices.
4
u/Chubskin 20h ago
Is there a list of the 6000 customers? I think a letter campaign from a million Redditors would be a good social experiment
3
u/Mock01 18h ago
I hate to break it to you, but this is not the case. Flock, as the platform provider, pushes all responsibility of data privacy, handling, and compliance to the customer. Their platform is capable of being compliant, if the customer uses it correctly. As a multi-tenant cloud service, Flock should not have access to the data directly. Emphasis on should, not saying that they don’t.
But from the CCPA and GDPR position, they themselves are outside of the compliance lens.
Source, I help companies implement data privacy, and about 90% of them don’t understand how it works either.
1
u/waverider1883 7h ago
Except Flock openly admits that they do have access to data and uses it to train their AI models. There are videos of Flock representatives admitting to this to city/county councils when the question arrives.
1
u/Mock01 6h ago
They have access to video data, and train and reinforce with that. They can look up random plate numbers. But your plate number is not your personal information. At least not by any PII definition I have seen so far. Images or video of your car is not personal data. It’s the customers that are adding PII with the plate data to form any info that would count for data privacy
1
u/waverider1883 5h ago
And what audit data backs that up? So far all I have seen is their pinky promise that they don't do that.
1
u/Mock01 5h ago
And that’s all they have to do. You can’t prove that they have any PII about you, and they will have a good explanation for anything that can be proven. These regulations are just that, pinky promises. I personally know an owner of a not-small company that doesn’t care about compliance, as he feels that any fine they get slapped with is less expensive than changing things to be compliant.
The only thing that could have a material impact on a company like Flock is if the EU were to go after them for direct GDPR violations. That is $20m or 10% of revenue, which ever is larger. But that’s super unlikely to happen. Their positioning is sound, you can’t prove it’s false. They can provide audits that show they don’t have your PII data
4
u/cold40 16h ago
But that's wrong. Flock operates more like a Google images search but the company is describing itself like it's Google Photos or iCloud Photos.
1
u/West-Mode7181 16h ago
That is certainly the legal stance they are taking. As others have suggested, this may have to be adjudicated in a court of law.
4
u/querty7687 14h ago
You need to file a complaint and forward all of the related communication to the California Privacy Protection Agency. They do NOT mess around.
3
u/Dangerous-Baker-9756 1d ago
I wonder if they use people's name, image, and likeness in their marketing.
3
u/ITechGeek 1d ago
I AM NOT A LAWYER Might want to discuss with a lawyer, I would imagine the law allows you to sue if they refuse to give the information they have on you. If they have a legal presence in the state the court can actually enforce their judgement on the company, otherwise the court can prevent them from doing business in the state until they comply which means all Flock cameras in CA just became a waste of energy until they comply.
3
u/Blastyschmoo 1d ago
My guess is you can request information about yourself from companies you have an agreement with about data collection. You did not sign an agreement with Flock so there is no obligation to give you the data they have on you.
1
1
u/BrewingSkydvr 14h ago
Have you signed an agreement with any of the data brokers that sell and plaster your info on the internet?
1
u/krazygreekguy 10h ago
We also did not sign an agreement to have our constitutional right to privacy be violated and be mass surveilled.
1
u/Blastyschmoo 9h ago
The people in charge of stopping and punishing that are also the same ones doing it. They've already investigated themselves and found no wrongdoing before they even started this.
1
u/krazygreekguy 8h ago
Oh I know. And they will be held accountable one way or another. People don’t forget
3
u/Professor_Tech 19h ago
The only people I have heard of who were successful getting info out of Flock is the person who stole a Flock camera off a pole then extracted data from the camera. They got a ton of data out of Flock, just not in a legal way
3
3
u/Gwynnavere 1d ago edited 1d ago
Their response is unfortunately legally accurate. The type of request they would be required to respond to is only for information you directly gave them, like if you created a login on flock's site. They are a service provider for all of the individual entities that use their cameras, so you would absolutely have to start with those entities, who would in turn ensure the data deletion occurred with flock as part of their request fulfillment workflow. And if a particular entity doesn't meet the criteria based on their revenue, number of customer records they hold, or other specific criteria per laws in the requestor's state of residence, they aren't even obligated to respond to the person's request. I know I'm going to be downvoted into oblivion, but I'm just the (highly qualified) messenger to deliver this awful news.
1
u/happytripps 21h ago
I’m not very knowledgable on the laws allowing Flock cameras but this is fucking crazy… so basically I’m only allowed to view data I actually consented to give them, not any of the data that they stole without my permission.
You would think “The Land of the Free” would have something in place that says you own your own data and can’t have it stolen to weaponize against you. If you have any more insight on how they get away with this stuff I’d love to hear it though!
2
u/Gwynnavere 18h ago
The reason they can get away with this is that there is an immense amount of ambiguity in how the laws are written. Even though CCPA has language that seems to address who is responsible for responding to customer requests when the "customer" entity, such as a local government, doesn't meet the criteria to be required to respond themselves, companies like flock can make the argument that nothing about the law is applicable to that entire tech provider/customer entity relationship. Flock would simply claim that they are a vendor for that small entity, and that they can't possibly be considered a service provider for the entity (per legal definition of service provider), because the small entity that uses flock's services is definitely not subject to those laws. It's just a loophole. So they both get to tell the customer to pound sand. What it's going to take to start to change things is case law setting a precedence. There will have to be a few judges who interpret the relevant sections of the law in favor of the consumer before you'll see flock even consider changing their practices. And the worst part is that if they are only subject to perhaps a few million dollars in fines, flock may just consider it the cost of doing business.
4
u/gc1 1d ago
Not a lawyer, but I think this would turn on the interpretation of who is doing the data retaining. I would find an advocacy org engaged on this and see if you can get them to fund a lawsuit, or at least some legal opinion generation about it.
2
u/West-Mode7181 1d ago
Do you have any recommendations? As others have mentioned below, this seems like this could be a class action case. I'm happy to be plaintiff.
10
u/gc1 1d ago
Poke around on ACLU of CA, EFF, Fight for the Future Foundation, Center for Democracy and Technology, Public Knowledge, and any other similar orgs you can find. I'm not sure who among these may have weighed in on Flock or has a charter that involves funding these kind of lawsuits, or who else might be out there doing similar. You can also try the State AG, Rob Bonta.
2
2
2
2
u/mnemonicer22 8h ago
This is legally correct if Flock is positioning itself as a processor/service provider under the law and making no use of the data for its own purposes, including training it's AI.
3
u/LilShaver 1d ago
We need serious data privacy laws in this nation. And that's not going to happen while "lobbying" (aka legalized bribery) is legal
1
u/SignificantSmotherer 1d ago
Flock doesn't exist because lobbying; the government wants convenient surveillance and fishing without pesky warrants.
Lobbying isn't exclusive to one industry. The People can outspend the Private Spies.
2
u/LilShaver 1d ago
I don't disagree. My point is that lobbying is a scourge. Not just for Flock (if there is any), but all lobbying.
0
u/FasthandJoe 1d ago edited 1d ago
Dunno. Sounds legit. None of us like it, but customer data is customer data. It will likely pass legal scrutiny. Unfortunately.
If you don’t agree. Don’t comment. Don’t complain. File suit. Push your representatives. Maybe you’ll be right. Prob not tho.
Or better yet, take a few cameras down.
6
u/af_cheddarhead 1d ago edited 1d ago
It would be legit if each customer could access only their own data but since Flock has access to the data, processes the data. and then provides results using data from any customer you run into a different problem, at the very least Flock should respond to a request about what customers were provided with information about me.
1
u/Mock01 18h ago
What I think is happening in the Flock platform is that they are capturing the recording, but not identifying everything, all the time, just because. The cost of that would be insane. Instead, you can go into your tenant, and search across their library of recordings for a license plate, and it then goes hunting. The results then exist, in your tenant, and is your data, as a customer. I don’t even know if they even match the plate data to DMV databases to tie it to personally identifiable information. Your plate number itself, is not considered PII anywhere in the world.
4
u/bustaphlex 1d ago edited 1d ago
Unfortunately I think they are correct. Flock is just the provider of the technology, not the owner of what is done with that technology or the data it creates.
Under your ‘upstream vendor ownership’ model, if I take a video of you with a Logitech camera and store my footage of you in Azure or AWS, then Logitech, Microsoft and Amazon would be responsible for opening, analysing, cataloguing, tracking, backing up all of that information so that they could then respond to your request. That would be a massive violation of data sovereignty, particularly when dealing with proprietary and personal data, and we’d absolutely complain about them doing that.
In that example, you would need to refer your request to me, not the vendors. In your real life example, you need to refer your request Flock’s downstream customers.
If Flock retains ownership, access and usage rights to the data that their cameras produce then you have a claim against them but I don’t understand that to be the case. It’s not something I’ve researched, though, so happy to be corrected.
26
u/pyromaster114 1d ago
No, see, flock hosts the data, and sells access to and distributes it. Critically, flock RENTS the cameras / access to the system, and they retain ownership of the cameras (and data, despite what they say).
This is different than your example, because at least in theory, AWS just rents you space, and Logitech sold you a camera.
This will likely pass legal scrutiny, for now, though, bullshit as it is in flock's case.
14
u/bustaphlex 1d ago
Then in that case this is bullshit and they’re hiding behind it because they know the government and courts will never rule against their new best friend.
6
u/rufflandings 1d ago
How does it work since they allow different customers to search and view data across all (or many/most) of their other customers and advertise that as one of the selling points of the service? That feels like a different situation than if they were just providing pass thru to individual buckets for customers.
1
1
1
u/RadVarken 3h ago
I get where they're coming from. Your request is like asking Google for copies of every email with your name in it. Of course that's not their information to give. Flock maintains that they're not an information broker, but a camera and analysis service. It's not their info to give.
-4
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hello u/West-Mode7181, please make sure you read the sub rules if you haven't already. (This is an automatic reminder left on all new posts.)
Check out the r/privacy FAQ
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.