I would argue that the request was invalid in the first place.

If I see a flash on a speed camera operated by a business on behalf of a police department, your argument states I should be able to use CCPA to force the business to delete my picture and the record of me speeding If I can get the request to them before the police can file with the court and request that data as evidence.

The data belongs to the government, and you can't get around that right by going to business that holds the data and asking them to delete it.

> If I see a flash on a speed camera operated by a business on behalf of a police department, your argument states I should be able to use CCPA to force the business to delete my picture and the record of me speeding If I can get the request to them before the police can file with the court and request that data as evidence.

Sounds reasonable to me. If the police want to put up a camera, then the police should put up a camera.

Offloading their legal responsibilities to a third party company is shitty.

So police departments should have to develop and host all their administrative software also? I think we can all see why that would be a terrible idea. Police are like any other government agency or business in that they contract with the private sector for a variety of services that are not in their area of expertise.

> So police departments should have to develop and host all their administrative software also?

Yes. We're in an high technology and information age. Police should be well-versed and capable of understanding the technologies and informations that people use.

> I think we can all see why that would be a terrible idea.

I don't.

> Police are like any other government agency or business in that they contract with the private sector for a variety of services that are not in their area of expertise.

Why shouldn't police (or some law enforcement agency) be capable of operating and maintaining law enforcement technologies?

Develop, no. Host, yes. They should buy, own, and operate any technology like this on-prem. The only involvement that 3rd-party tech should have is sales, tech support, and maybe blind, encrypted backups accessible only by the municipality.

In other countries, police contract companies to develop software and run and manage the software themselves. Putting up a continental drag net to sell to government agencies is something I've only heard of from the US.

Nobody is saying cops should be writing software, but Flock shouldn't have access to the data and analysis tools it has right now. If American police can afford to be armed similarly to a small army, surely they can pay to run a couple of servers in a basement somewhere.

I'm surprised the USA is letting this happen given the culture of individual freedom that seems to have traditionally driven American laws.

> Nobody is saying cops should be writing software

I disagree. Businesses have their own internal software development teams.

Why shouldn't cops?

"Hey private prison please delete all data you have about me. And by the way, I'm locked up here by accident. Please release me."

Honestly private prisons are a farce anyways, so yeah this seems valid to me. The government doesn't get to get out of its obligations to citizens by outsourcing to third parties, and third parties don't get to wield government-level authority without government-level accountability.

But we're not talking about speed cameras or a private entity with exclusive contract with the police to provide traffic enforcement.

We're talking about Flock. A company offering surveillance as a service. Per their website:

>Trusted by over 12,000 public safety customers including cities, towns, counties, and business partners.

If Flock's argument holds then most of the CCPA be circumvented this same way. All it takes is a few entities and clever contract language.

Except the data does NOT belong to the government, that's the whole point of Flock operating the way it does. It's not governmental data collection it's data collection by a private company that is then made available to the government upon request. And yeah: it is literally allowed to delete data, because again: it's not a government agency, it's just private data, collected by a private company, with the exact same status as you recording an public intersection with a camera from your window.

The rule of any documentation is that it is out of date as soon as the ink is dry. By the time a regulation is enacted, workarounds/loopholes have already been found (if not intentionally worked into it).