What does this mean for videoing in public?
this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2026
181 points (100.0% liked)
politics
31297 readers
1704 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Wow. As someone who is unfortunately stuck in the festering Trump-humping suckfest that is Oklahoma, it's nice to see a very rare reasonable thing to come out of here. It also figures that it was one of our cops being so blatantly and overwhelmingly shitty to someone they saw because they had an out of state tag that caused this ruling. They like to do that. 🙄
(To be clear: I'm not implying cops elsewhere aren't also garbage; I know they are! I've just obviously had more personal experiences with the ones here.)
They obviously do.
What does that mean for their continued operation?
Nothing. The headline and the article do not match.
The judge’s ruling does not label the use of Flock data to aid in arrests as illegal, rather, it clarifies that the officer in this case did not have probable cause to “intruded on her reasonable expectation of privacy” with the technology — setting stricter precedent for when law enforcement may employ extensive ALPR databases during investigations.
So the cameras recording our every movement are just fine and dandy. It's just in this case, the officer didn't have probably cause to dip into that massive database before noting a minor traffic infraction. It seems like the judge ruled that the officer needed to follow her around until she made an infraction and then violated the hell out of her privacy. So, no real change at all.
Also...
A spokesperson for Flock told The Hill, “The ruling goes against the overwhelming weight of authority in similar cases across the country, including multiple recent decisions in Oklahoma, and we expect it will be appealed and ultimately overturned.”
Yep. I imagine even the very slight limitation to Flock use resulting from this ruling will end up getting overturned by the appeals court, state supreme court or SCOTUS.
Still promising precedent imo
So basically, the city which installs them violates reasonable expectation of privacy. The fact that the data was collected was the violation in the first place.
That they will continue to be operated illegally, this is 2026 my dude.
Don't worry. The fascist SC can be trusted to legalize all crimes that benefit fascism, permanently.
They will be receiving a sternly written letter in the mail.