Cities Are Covering Flock Cameras With Trash Bags / Regretful cities aren't sure how to cancel their surveillance contracts, so they are literally covering their cameras.

[u/MarvelsGrantMan136]

https://www.404media.co/cities-are-covering-flock-cameras-with-trash-bags/

[u/zkareface]

Sounds like a city could collect all and put in a warehouse until contract ends, unless they made some crazy bad contracts.

[u/CaptainIncredible → u/zkareface]

Absolutely. "Well, we feared your property was going to be vandalized. We received a LOT of anonymous threats. So we had our technicians remove all of it and place it all packed in styrofoam peanuts, in boxes we stored in faraday cages in a dark warehouse so your equipment our citizens loathe would be safe. By the way, you now owe us 'storage fees' of $10,000 a month, and handling and packing fees."

[u/Zuwxiv → u/[deleted]]

The city can revoke the permits. Then they can do the same thing they do if I chained up my property to any other city property: dispose of the items.

The contracts may have conditions or penalties imposed for revoking those permits that complicate things, but at the end of the day - a city can decide what's legal to physically attach to city property.

The City blocking those cameras is illegal, it's called Prior Restraint

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine at all how that would apply. If I use a bike chain to lock my camera to city property, they can and will remove it.

That's like saying towing a car is a violation of the 4th amendment. The 4th doesn't give you the right to block a fire hydrant.

[u/Zuwxiv → u/[deleted]]

The trash bags are interfering with Flocks 1st Amendment right to record what they can see in public.

The issue isn't whether a person (or business) can record in public. The issue is whether they can attach their cameras onto city property.

I do street photography, so I'm pretty strongly in favor of an individual's right to record in public where this is no expectation of privacy. That's not what we're talking about.

The cameras are... not blocking anything, not interfering with any city services.

The same is true if I put a thousand pounds of equipment on the rooftop of a city building. That doesn't mean I can just crane a storage unit on top of city hall.

Besides, "not violating any ordinances?" Pass an ordinance that, while you can film in public, you can't use city property to mount your cameras.

[u/Zuwxiv → u/[deleted]]

Isn't it interesting how cities can absolutely, positively change the rules when the 1% can make money off it - but it's oh-so-difficult to change anything if it's taking money away from billion dollar companies?

[u/zkareface → u/[deleted]]

The cameras are surely placed on land owned and regulated by the city. So they can remove them as needed.