Texas city demands $2M for public records on Flock usage
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Another example from Vermont's governor's office: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/vermont-80/email-metadata-55744...
Happy to help more but I'll probably be unavailable tonight.
[1] https://mchap.io/that-time-the-city-of-seattle-accidentally-...
head -500000 /dev/urandom > fill_unused_space
while [ 1 ] ; do
echo " "
echo "Making a copy of the large file on `date`"
cp fill_unused_space fill_unused_space`date +%s` || break
echo " "
echo "Pass $counter. Display how full the file systems are:"
df
done
There are some really hilarious responses when asking for student grade distributions (i.e. records they 100% have):
> Purdue University does not have such a record in existence. One would have to be created in order to fulfill your request. Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act puts no obligation on a public agency to create a record in order to satisfy a records request. Therefore, Purdue has no records to provide.
> The University of Utah received your GRAMA request. In that request you seek grade distributions for all formal courses at the University of Utah for the last five years. You requested this information in a digital CSV format. We can only provide a paper format. The report for the last five years is 9,714 pages. The reasonable copying fee for documents responsive to most GRAMA requests is $.25 per copy. Therefore, your cost for this report will be $2,428.50.
Often you can request it in the format they have available, etc. You can also apply pressure by submitting a different request, i.e. all the invoices or secondary records, then have AI scan them.
You asked for records on 32 million emails and they responded that they'd have to review the emails to make sure they (Seattle) didn't release anything sensitive.
They then agreed that because you only requested metadata, they wouldn't need to review the emails. (Your article isn't fully clear about whether they made this observation spontaneously or in response to some communication from you.)
And then, they released the emails to you with no review. This caused a scandal and the city's CTO resigned.
The actual sequence of events tends to suggest that when they thought they'd need to run a review, they were right. When they were persuaded that they shouldn't need to (which was true), they messed up the release, broke a bunch of laws, and caused big problems for themselves. The fact that they shouldn't have needed a review didn't stop them from needing it in reality.
This raises the more general question of how to think about responses along the lines of "for a competent agency, this request wouldn't be burdensome, but we aren't a competent agency".
his original requests didnt even ask for the subject line. he just wanted to see who emails who to make a graph of how the city communicates. instead they sent him the contents of the emails, including highly sensitive ones
https://www.texastribune.org/2026/10/05/texas-flock-cameras-...
Less egregious, but still egregious, a few weeks ago a local news investigator in Houston was quoted $121,000 for public records request related to Flock cameras:
https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2026/09/24/harris-c...
But when we contacted the person in charge of *Digitalisation* they said they can only PRINT the source code for us, and it would cost an estimated 4000 dollars in paper printing. This is the person in charge of digitising their organisation... in a time when we're measuring every page printed and counting it towards our sustainability scores.
Really makes you wonder if they're being difficult on purpose to hide shitty source code.
Unless... no, that couldn't have been a lie, could it? The government would never try to overcharge anyone, right?
That would be New Hampshire. Their state motto is even "Live Free or Die"
Unless you think those citizens should lose their privacy rights the records concerning them need to be redacted before distribution.
If it's recorded on a Flock camera it happened in public where there's zero expectation of privacy. If the police in Texas are being so careless about people's actually private data that it's showing up in Flock camera feeds the public should absolutely be able to see the evidence of that so that something can be done to stop it.
As far as Flock feeds go, do you think that if you do something or something happens to you in a place with no expectation of privacy, but you get lucky and no members of the public are around to see it but it does get captured by a Flock camera the police should be obligated to release it to anyone who asks?
How does that serve the public interest? From a privacy point of view I'd be much happier if the rule is that the government cannot release private info about me, no matter how it was acquired, unless there is a significant public interest in doing so.