Route 66 Shooting Park Installs FLOCK Camera facing into the range to spy on patrons! Thoughts!??

[lilkidx]

After all this talk about Flock cameras, I'm now wondering if these are doubling as cameras...

View attachment 242512

Apparently, they do

 

[treelogger]

Except for the fact these are installed on government contracts most of the time.

That brings up an interesting question: Does LE need a warrant for accessing data it has anyway?

Two examples: The local PD also runs the dispatch center. The dispatchers keep a log of who called, on what day, at what time, and about what. Now an officer is investing a crime, whether Alice murdered Bob or not. They look at the dispatch log, to see whether they received any phone calls from Alice's or Bob's phone number, and whether any call was about Alice or Bob. Do they need a search warrant to read the log?

Second: The local PD pays an officer to sit outside at the nearest street corner, with a radar gun, watch, and clipboard. Takes speed measurements, and writes them on the clipboard, with the license plate numbers. I don't think that in and of itself needs a warrant. Now an officer is investigating a crime, and wants to look at the clipboard, to see whether Christine's car 1ABC234 came back recently, and if yes when, and at what speed. Do they need a warrant for that?

How about information that is already public? For example: Building permit applications; anyone can see them at our county's building department web site. Officer is investigated a crime, and pulls up the county web site to see whether David has recently pulled a building permit. This is public data, I could read it just as well. Warrant required?

By the way, these are not rhetorical questions: I really don't know the answer. I think it has a lot to do with a "reasonable expectation of privacy". For example, my lawyer and I have a private meeting with County counsel, to discuss a pending lawsuit. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Even though the county sheriff's office is in the same building, and a sheriff's deputy could easily hide in the broom closet next to the meeting room and overhear our conversation, they'd need a warrant to hide in the broom closet and then use their own transcript. On the other hand, if a sheriff's deputy sees me going down the hallway towards the counsel's office and recognizes my ugly face, they don't need a warrant, since the hallway of the county building is a public place and I have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Matter-of-fact, they could serve me with a legal document based on recognizing my face (many sheriff's departments also do process serving).

The need for warrants to access already existing data (even including the memory of officers, like recognizing faces) seems to be a complicated field.

 

[Hamburger Monster]

That brings up an interesting question: Does LE need a warrant for accessing data it has anyway?

Two examples: The local PD also runs the dispatch center. The dispatchers keep a log of who called, on what day, at what time, and about what. Now an officer is investing a crime, whether Alice murdered Bob or not. They look at the dispatch log, to see whether they received any phone calls from Alice's or Bob's phone number, and whether any call was about Alice or Bob. Do they need a search warrant to read the log?

Second: The local PD pays an officer to sit outside at the nearest street corner, with a radar gun, watch, and clipboard. Takes speed measurements, and writes them on the clipboard, with the license plate numbers. I don't think that in and of itself needs a warrant. Now an officer is investigating a crime, and wants to look at the clipboard, to see whether Christine's car 1ABC234 came back recently, and if yes when, and at what speed. Do they need a warrant for that?

How about information that is already public? For example: Building permit applications; anyone can see them at our county's building department web site. Officer is investigated a crime, and pulls up the county web site to see whether David has recently pulled a building permit. This is public data, I could read it just as well. Warrant required?

By the way, these are not rhetorical questions: I really don't know the answer. I think it has a lot to do with a "reasonable expectation of privacy". For example, my lawyer and I have a private meeting with County counsel, to discuss a pending lawsuit. I have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Even though the county sheriff's office is in the same building, and a sheriff's deputy could easily hide in the broom closet next to the meeting room and overhear our conversation, they'd need a warrant to hide in the broom closet and then use their own transcript. On the other hand, if a sheriff's deputy sees me going down the hallway towards the counsel's office and recognizes my ugly face, they don't need a warrant, since the hallway of the county building is a public place and I have no reasonable expectation of privacy. Matter-of-fact, they could serve me with a legal document based on recognizing my face (many sheriff's departments also do process serving).

The need for warrants to access already existing data (even including the memory of officers, like recognizing faces) seems to be a complicated field.

All great points. And this, or any legal challenges will likely center on this question on reasonable expectation of privacy.

I'm pretty sure the courts have already ruled license plate readers are legal because, as you put it, anyone with a pen and a clipboard can write down any plate they can see from the street or public area. Tracking Bluetooth or other phone information, especially if it's recording device specific information, can be on shaky ground legal wise. I think the biggest issue really is if the government is doing it or a private company

I think with the government, you don't really have a choice, there is no opt out option. They track and record. This can in my opinion be challenged on the unreasonable search and seizure grounds. Unlike private companies, where one can choose another service, you can't choose another government short of a revolution.

 

[socalgunowner909]

Get E bikes and ditch the cell phones and wear a mask and cover up any tats. But once people do that then they will make it illegal to ride e bikes without a plate also.

 

[Gawernator]

Dragnet surveillance, which Flock effectively is, is a violation of the fourth per United States v. Chatrie, and anyone who claims otherwise is a traitor. Simple as.

This is false and incorrect

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, holding that individuals maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy in their digital location history, even when that data is held by a third-party tech company like Google.

The ruling states nothing about recording images in public with a camera. Please do not spread FUD and misinformation on the forum, thanks.

 

[Gawernator]

It's supposed to get a warrant for things like cell phone data. I see no reason why it wouldn't apply here too. Except for the fact these are installed on government contracts most of the time. Still shouldn't be allowed.

I've said it before. But the government is not allowed to do indirectly what it is prohibited from doing directly

Which law prohibits taking photos or videos in public spaces?

 

[Gawernator]

All great points. And this, or any legal challenges will likely center on this question on reasonable expectation of privacy.

I'm pretty sure the courts have already ruled license plate readers are legal because, as you put it, anyone with a pen and a clipboard can write down any plate they can see from the street or public area. Tracking Bluetooth or other phone information, especially if it's recording device specific information, can be on shaky ground legal wise. I think the biggest issue really is if the government is doing it or a private company

I think with the government, you don't really have a choice, there is no opt out option. They track and record. This can in my opinion be challenged on the unreasonable search and seizure grounds. Unlike private companies, where one can choose another service, you can't choose another government short of a revolution.

That would be a big uphill battle:

You'd need to overturn the Supreme Court

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1][2] The ruling expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from an individual's "persons, houses, papers, and effects," as specified in the Constitution's text, to include any areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."[3] The reasonable expectation of privacy standard, now known as the Katz test, was formulated in a concurring opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II.[4]

I'd like to see proof of this claim that the camera "tracks your bluetooth or phone info"

That sounds made up tbh. You guys really need to read and understand these topics and not just say whatever. I get not wanting a huge network of these cameras but you have to operate within logic/reality. Come back to Earth.

 

[Gawernator]

does the government need a warrant to purchase the information this 3rd party non government entity collects on citizens

Oftentimes no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

Sometimes, yes

In August 2024, the Fifth Circuit found in United States v. Smith that location history shared with Google was akin to cell-site location information at issue in Carpenter v. United States, and so a warrant based on probable cause and particularized suspicion is required for law enforcement to obtain location history from Google. The geofence warrant used by law enforcement in that case was, the Fifth Circuit held, inadequate. The court went on, however, to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, upholding the trial court's use of the evidence obtained in the convictions of the defendants.[10]


In 2026, the Supreme Court limited the application of the doctrine to digital location data as well. Chatrie v. United States held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it compels Google to provide a user's historical location information, even though the data is held by a third-party techonology company. In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan reasoned that Google Location History reveals sensitive details about a person and is not "voluntarily" shared in the sense contemplated by the traditional third-party doctrine

 

[grandpapeepap]

Oftentimes no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_doctrine

Sometimes, yes

In August 2024, the Fifth Circuit found in United States v. Smith that location history shared with Google was akin to cell-site location information at issue in Carpenter v. United States, and so a warrant based on probable cause and particularized suspicion is required for law enforcement to obtain location history from Google. The geofence warrant used by law enforcement in that case was, the Fifth Circuit held, inadequate. The court went on, however, to apply the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule, upholding the trial court's use of the evidence obtained in the convictions of the defendants.[10]


In 2026, the Supreme Court limited the application of the doctrine to digital location data as well. Chatrie v. United States held that law enforcement conducts a Fourth Amendment search when it compels Google to provide a user's historical location information, even though the data is held by a third-party techonology company. In the majority opinion, Justice Elena Kagan reasoned that Google Location History reveals sensitive details about a person and is not "voluntarily" shared in the sense contemplated by the traditional third-party doctrine

 

[Sent it with Jesus]

Well it saves me from ever having to go there to check them out now that I have moved back. Considering what I have seen from R66 on Reddit and here doesn’t seem like that much of a loss to me though.

What are you talking they are beloved on Reddit.

 

[Gawernator]

What are you talking they are beloved on Reddit.

Reddit is a senseless hivemind, especially subs like CAguns. They just go with whatever trend is upvoted, that's the downside of that system because it creates echo chambers. So they've been dogpiled hard since the flock camera

 

[grandpapeepap]

That would be a big uphill battle:

You'd need to overturn the Supreme Court

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" with regard to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[1][2] The ruling expanded the Fourth Amendment's protections from an individual's "persons, houses, papers, and effects," as specified in the Constitution's text, to include any areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."[3] The reasonable expectation of privacy standard, now known as the Katz test, was formulated in a concurring opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II.[4]

I'd like to see proof of this claim that the camera "tracks your bluetooth or phone info"

That sounds made up tbh. You guys really need to read and understand these topics and not just say whatever. I get not wanting a huge network of these cameras but you have to operate within logic/reality. Come back to Earth.

the company signaltrace is coming out with bluetooth reading and can even read the chips in dogs.

https://www.techradar.com/vehicle-tech/think-flock-is-bad-this-new-tech-is-coming-to-link-license-plates-with-your-phone-and-it-could-be-more-bad-news-for-privacy

 

[socalgunowner909]

OK - they were on here today.

@Route66ShootingSportsPark , perhaps you can clarify some of the details here so we can put this to bed ?

They want to just let it pass and not address it at all. IG and here not one response.

 

[grandpapeepap]

 

[Gawernator]

They want to just let it pass and not address it at all. IG and here not one response.

Smart. Most people will completely forget within 72 hours and move on.

 

[Sent it with Jesus]

Smart. Most people will completely forget within 72 hours and move on.

The mob will still hang them even if they come out and say anything publicly. It could be 100% true, and no one would care. They could come out and say, “Hey, guys the camera was installed on the public easement. We didn’t agree to it. We’re sorry it took so long for us to take action.” Or they could come out and say, “Hey guys, this was our private-operated system. We bought it years ago before Flock was used for bad. We realize the damage it has done. We’re sorry we didn’t take action. Everyone will still try to burn them like the Salem witch hunt. There’s no upside for them.”

 

[Tex38]

They took it down already right?

 

[Hamburger Monster]

They took it down already right?

Watch the video posted numerous times above

 

[Hit Factor]

Just to be clear, did Route 66 specifically allow it to go up? Did they consent to have it face their property? Did they own the property it was installed on? These factors matter as far as I’m concerned.

 

[Warpspeed]

Just to be clear, did Route 66 specifically allow it to go up? Did they consent to have it face their property? Did they own the property it was installed on? These factors matter as far as I’m concerned.

I think that is the info most people here would like to know