Americans Support Vigilantes Targeting Flock Cameras

Americans are rising up against Flock cameras, taking to the streets to protest, damage, and even destroy them. This movement is just getting started.

The spontaneous and decentralized nature of these protests makes them hard to control. There’s no single method of disruption; actions range from unplugging and smashing the cameras to less destructive tactics like physically blocking them for hours. While some individuals have been caught, it hasn’t stopped others from taking matters into their own hands.

Support for those who are actively working to dismantle these cameras is growing online. Recently, a sheriff in Lumpkin County, Georgia, announced a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of whoever vandalized a Flock camera near a local park. In a video, Sheriff Stacy Jarrard expressed his frustration, stating, “I hope you’re happy with this. It was to keep our kids safe,” inadvertently revealing that the cameras are used for more than just issuing speeding tickets.

The sheriff’s post backfired, garnering over 30,000 comments, most of which opposed the cameras and even praised the vandals. One commenter quipped, “Looks like a Constitutional wind blew it over,” while another said, “Looks like somebody fixed it for you guys.” Many congratulated the culprits, claiming they were “doing the lord’s work.” In light of the backlash, Jarrard shifted his tone, acknowledging the need for privacy measures but stopping short of promising to remove the cameras. “We need more safeguards in motion,” he said. “I’m going to listen to you.”

In suburban New York, police reported a wave of vandalism against Flock cameras in Suffolk County, where several cameras were unplugged, spray-painted, and even run over. An article about these incidents drew a flood of comments supporting the actions of the vandals. One reader noted, “They’ve tried to put them up by my house, but someone keeps running them over. I bet they have gone through a dozen, so far. Thanks to whoever is doing it.”

Support for these vigilantes extends beyond online comments. An Air Force engineer accused of cutting down 13 Flock cameras in Virginia has raised over $44,000 for his legal defense through GoFundMe. In another case, felony charges against an alleged vandal in Ohio were dropped after a grand jury declined to indict him.

The widespread opposition to Flock cameras and the support for those who destroy them mark a significant moment for the anti-Big Tech movement. Activist historians refer to this as a “diversity of tactics,” suggesting that movements gain strength when they embrace those who take direct action, rather than dividing into “good” and “bad” protesters. As author Margaret Killjoy noted, “Social movements are effective specifically when there is solidarity between their broader base and the people who are committing criminal direct action. When social movements stand behind their criminals, they win.”

The destruction of Flock cameras isn’t just popular; it has proven effective in some cases. Recently, police in Winona, Minnesota, announced they would not reinstall the city’s eight Flock cameras after all were stolen, citing “growing concerns about trust in policing.” Similarly, after two incidents of camera destruction, police in Burnet County, Texas, declared they had removed all Flock cameras from the area.

This resistance to surveillance technology reflects a rapidly growing public sentiment that transcends geographic and political boundaries. The cameras have faced heavy criticism for their misuse and deployment without public input, becoming a focal point for a bipartisan movement against tech industry overreach. From urban centers to rural areas, the message is clear: people want these cameras gone, by any means necessary.

“Nonviolent direct action is a recognized and established tactic, and it’s unsurprising that some people are resorting to that,” said Alex Marthews, national chair of a civil rights group. “They’re doing so because the whole structure for approval of surveillance technologies has been set up to minimize public control. Everything gets arranged by public safety people for public safety people, with an explicit intent of shutting the public out. … What do they expect to happen?”

Initially marketed as an automatic license plate reader system, Flock cameras are often used by police to track vehicles and individuals based on various identifying traits. In the past month, 18 officers in Georgia have been arrested for misusing these cameras. Numerous reports have surfaced of police officers stalking romantic interests and innocent individuals using the technology.

“People are seeing these cameras in their communities. They are hearing stories of police using them to stalk people. They are reading stories of the tech being used to target immigrants and people exercising their First Amendment rights — and folks are connecting the dots,” said Chris Gilliard, a privacy researcher.

While there isn’t comprehensive data on nationwide opposition to Flock, smaller polls indicate significant discontent. A recent survey in Knox County, Tennessee, found that 58 percent of voters oppose Flock cameras, with half believing they violate the Fourth Amendment. An online poll in Rhode Island showed that 83 percent of respondents opposed the deployment of Flock cameras in their communities.

Politicians are starting to take notice, including those from traditionally conservative states. Recently, a group of House Republicans introduced a bill to prevent the federal government from purchasing Flock cameras or similar technology. Statements opposing the cameras have emerged from Republicans in Pennsylvania and West Virginia, with the former urging constituents to call their representatives to “Stop the Flock.” Legislation proposing warrant restrictions or outright bans on Flock cameras has been introduced in several states, including Maine, Michigan, and Texas. In a notable incident, a candidate for the Tennessee House of Representatives was arrested for allegedly shooting at four different cameras.

Marthews emphasizes that the bipartisan opposition to Flock challenges the notion that privacy and civil rights are solely leftist concerns. “The MAGA base does not like this stuff. They do not like being intruded upon in matters intrinsic to their everyday life,” he said. “In rural areas, driving is a necessity, and therefore they don’t have a choice about whether Flock is collecting data on their movements.”

Since last year, numerous cities and counties across the U.S. have terminated or declined to renew contracts with Flock Safety. Over 130 cities have rejected ALPR systems, according to a site tracking Flock camera locations. This opposition is even influencing the real estate market, with some buyers using the tracking map to avoid properties in areas with Flock cameras. Even Flock’s CEO has softened his stance, recently apologizing for labeling anti-Flock activists as a “terroristic” group and announcing software changes.

Viet Trinh, a historian who testified against Flock cameras, notes that the public nature of the vandalism contributes to its appeal. “It’s not just that they see the camera and take it down. Even when the people who destroy these cameras are caught, there’s a public intrigue to it,” he said. “The fact that nobody likes these cameras and that there’s someone out there willing to do something about it captures the public imagination.”

Gilliard believes the actions against Flock cameras are part of a broader backlash against tech companies. “It’s easier to deface a camera than it would be to smash Claude or ChatGPT,” he remarked.

Despite the momentum, advocates like Marthews worry that the focus on Flock may limit the broader fight against surveillance technology. Competitors like Axon are poised to take advantage of the scrutiny surrounding Flock, highlighting a vulnerability in the current movement — the tendency to target specific companies rather than the underlying technologies. “A lot of this seems like anti-Flock rather than anti-surveillance,” Gilliard said. “Unfortunately, people often don’t feel moved unless a thing affects them personally. Reformers are talking more about ‘guardrails,’ when the proper solution is abolition.”

Whatever the future holds for this movement, it’s clear that the anger against the tech industry transcends political lines, and those taking action are not bound by legality. “There is this visceral understanding that this technology is surveillance tech that criminalizes anyone who drives a car,” Trinh explained. “People who typically support punitive measures now realize that these measures apply to them as well. There’s a growing awareness that, in this case, everyone is a criminal.”