5 ms·

What do you mean? Google is legally required to share information, and does share information, when such information is requested through a whole variety of dif

What do you mean? Google is legally required to share information, and does share information, when such information is requested through a whole variety of different means available to local governments. https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests https://policies.google.com/terms/information-requests

seanmcdirmid 4d ago
Only if they retain it, and I would bet they are purging it quickly as a matter of policy to avoid these kinds of situations.
anon84873628 4d ago
That's the same as the police getting security footage from any random building. The problem with Flock is that they let police hop on and look at whatever they want whenever they want. Completely different operating modes and intentions. Also, Google and Waymo are different companies under the same parent. Google's policies are irrelevant.
- handwarmers 4d ago
  Yeah good point on the policies. It makes Waymo's case worse though, because they have nothing defined publicly. They are also for-profit, and trying to deploy to more cities. The concerns are real - https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2025/jul/1/driverless-vehicles-are-newest-mass-surveillance-tool-law-enforcement/ https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2025/jul/1/driverless... "While companies like Waymo insist they require search warrants for footage, based on probable cause and judicial approval, the legal framework for accessing autonomous vehicle data remains unsettled. A 2022 analysis by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) noted that few states have specific laws governing law enforcement access to such data, leaving gaps in oversight. In Arizona, where Waymo operates extensively, police must typically obtain a search warrant to access footage, as required by state law for electronic records and consistent with Fourth Amendment protections. "

seanmcdirmid 4d ago

Only if they retain it, and I would bet they are purging it quickly as a matter of policy to avoid these kinds of situations.

anon84873628 4d ago

That's the same as the police getting security footage from any random building. The problem with Flock is that they let police hop on and look at whatever they want whenever they want. Completely different operating modes and intentions. Also, Google and Waymo are different companies under the same parent. Google's policies are irrelevant.

handwarmers 4d ago
Yeah good point on the policies. It makes Waymo's case worse though, because they have nothing defined publicly. They are also for-profit, and trying to deploy to more cities. The concerns are real - https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2025/jul/1/driverless-vehicles-are-newest-mass-surveillance-tool-law-enforcement/ https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2025/jul/1/driverless... "While companies like Waymo insist they require search warrants for footage, based on probable cause and judicial approval, the legal framework for accessing autonomous vehicle data remains unsettled. A 2022 analysis by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) noted that few states have specific laws governing law enforcement access to such data, leaving gaps in oversight. In Arizona, where Waymo operates extensively, police must typically obtain a search warrant to access footage, as required by state law for electronic records and consistent with Fourth Amendment protections. "