The growing vigilante movement to knock out Flock surveillance cameras

The first time that “NoMark” tried to knock out a Flock camera feed, he waited an hour for the perfect moment – pacing in and out of bushes that towered over him, a few feet behind a pole holding up the device.

“I was just so nervous,” he said.

NoMark, as he’s known on Instagram, had already gained an online following of hundreds of thousands for posting videos of himself wearing a black mask and taking on small-time vigilante missions: breaking up fights outside a bar and breaking into a refinery he believed was “polluting the city real bad”. The Minnesota Star Tribune dubbed him “Minneapolis’ Batman”. He spoke to the Guardian under condition of anonymity to discuss potentially illegal acts.

On this June night, he set his sights on a new target: automated license plate readers (ALPRs) made by the US company Flock Safety.

These black cameras, which are hooked up to a rectangular solar panel and typically mounted on a pole, snap photos of passing vehicles and run the pictures against large databases. They have sparked nationwide backlash from pro-privacy critics, who point to public records suggesting that these devices can help law enforcement keep tabs on specific license plates and the people driving these cars. That they can sweep in so many people’s location from an innocent act in a public space – regardless of whether the target is a suspect in a crime, and without a warrant – has led to fears of mass surveillance.

Flock, based in Georgia and valued at $8.4bn, says its cameras scan license plates billions of times each month in about 6,000 communities in nearly every state in the US.

The company said in a February blogpost that its ALPRs are “not mass surveillance tools” and that it “cannot track vehicles, much less individual people”.

Across the street from a Taco Bell, NoMark couldn’t stop thinking about whether he would get caught, and the adrenaline felt paralyzing – even though this felt “on brand” for his online persona, which has won him more than 700,000 followers on Instagram and TikTok. After a few minutes of not spotting any cars on the road, he climbed a few feet up the pole, taped up the camera to block its lens and snipped the wires that powered the whole operation. Then he ended his phone’s recording and fled.

Nowadays, NoMark is much calmer on these excursions, and it only takes him a few minutes to get the job done after having taken down more than a dozen cameras, he says. But he still assumes the police are looking for him. Even if he does get arrested, he’s hopeful the charges won’t be too severe – and more important, he “just wants to send a message”.

“I’m not afraid to do things if I think they’re right,” he says. “These things are coming up so fast across the country that this is kind of the only way to combat them.”

The Minneapolis camera destroyer is not alone. As anger grows towards law enforcement contracts with Flock, vigilantes across the country are taking matters into their own hands by smashing, obstructing or taking down these cameras. Many are leaning into their creative side: “paint bombing” the devices, planting American flags at the scene after damaging them, 3D printing objects to help obstruct the camera’s view and leaving colorful messages like “hahaha get wrecked ya surveilling fucks”. Some influencers are even creating fake cease-and-desist letters from Flock, capitalizing on the company’s negative public perception.

The Guardian has identified at least 33 instances of people damaging, vandalizing and destroying Flock cameras, across 23 states, that appear to have the explicit message of protesting surveillance.

Flock, along with police departments across the US, say these cameras are integral for public safety, and capture vehicle details that can help in investigations, such as license plate numbers and the make and model of vehicles. Flock’s website also advertises how these cameras can “stop crime in real time” by alerting officers “the moment a suspect car passes by” – suggesting that cops can act quickly on these leads to pursue a target. The company’s CEO, Garrett Langley, has described some pro-privacy critics as wanting to “normalize lawlessness” and “weaken public safety”.

NoMark has not been caught in his campaign against Flock cameras. Others are facing charges. Jeffrey Sovern in Suffolk, Virginia, has been charged with destruction of property for allegedly damaging more than a dozen Flock cameras. Sovern has not admitted to the act but did tell police that he finds these cameras to be unconstitutional.

He wrote on a GoFundMe created to pay for legal expenses: “I will take the silver lining that this can be a catalyst in a bigger movement to roll back intrusive surveillance.”

A handful of other cases have drawn criminal charges, too. In New Mexico, Jevon Martinez was arrested after allegedly destroying 13 Flock cameras.

When asked if he would “continue to take down these Flock cameras”, Martinez told local news station KRQE: “Absolutely. They are a clear and present threat to public safety.” The news outlet also reported that a sign near one of the damaged Flock cameras read: “You’re welcome, the Republic of New Mexico.”

Flock did not comment on vigilantes knocking out its cameras but did publish a blogpost in mid-July about helping government agencies respond if a camera is damaged.

“We’ve planned for it,” the company wrote, adding that protection plans are available for purchase.

Law enforcement is aware of the backlash and responding. Dozens of state fusion centers – collaborative hubs where federal and local agencies share intelligence about crime and terrorism – circulated memos across law enforcement agencies this summer directing officers to monitor anti-Flock advocacy as part of a directive to protect national security, according to reporting from journalist Dan Boguslaw. One report Boguslaw obtained from a Wisconsin intelligence agency calls for increased vigilance and patrols during protests and events such as a “national week of action” in mid-August. That intelligence digest also advised local law enforcement to report “vandalism, disruption or sabotage” of ALPRs to fusion centers.

Flock faces public blowback

The winds of sympathy online are not blowing in Flock’s favor. News articles and videos about vigilantes’ cases have drawn support from online commenters, who post made-up, neighborly alibis like seeing accused parties rescuing dogs or serving meals at a soup kitchen at the time a camera was destroyed.

The anti-Flock online ecosystem also features an exchange of tips and strategies for kneecapping the cameras. One Reddit poster shared a 3D print file for an object he says can help block cameras without damaging them or violating vandalism laws.

NoMark, in Minneapolis, says he receives dozens of messages daily from people wanting to help, letting him know they’re taking similar actions or asking for advice on staying safe. He keeps his replies vague, as he doesn’t want his words to get people arrested. He tells those writing to him to avoid driving past the cameras, and to make sure they’re going out late at night when they no one else is around. He reiterates that they should cover up completely, including their face and hands.

He also tells them: “Always cover the camera.”

Minneapolis’s Batman thinks you need both political pressure on elected officials and vigilantism to achieve change. He believes showing up to city council meetings – and he’s shown up to a few without his mask – is helpful but “it does obviously take time, and it’s not always effective”.

“The more time you take, the more data they get on people,” he said.

Privacy advocates pursue policy changes as vigilantes tear down cameras

More than 80 cities have disbanded, decided not to renew or rejected contracts with Flock in recent years, or deactivated the company’s cameras, including Austin and Denver, although activists remain concerned about the devices’ continued use in those areas.

Beyond general surveillance creep, privacy advocates fear US Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s ability to access these camera feeds through legal loopholes to pursue immigrants.

Police officers have used the cameras for their own personal ends as well. Several have lost their jobs after misusing the devices to stalk people. Though license plate reading is the cameras’ bread and butter, 404 Media reported last week that cops have used Flock’s search feature to look for people with distinct markers – like tattoos and specific T-shirts – and not just cars.

Congress is taking note, and earlier this month a Texas lawmaker introduced a bill requiring warrants for data collected by Flock cameras.

Not all anti-Flock activism takes the form of camera destruction. A crowdsourced map created by the grassroots group DeFlock maps out more than 115,000 ALPRs across the country. The organization’s site also allows users to see if their license plates have been searched in Flock’s system, get directions to avoid ALPRs and find upcoming meetings about municipal Flock contracts.

Flock’s CEO has taken note of DeFlock’s advocacy, too, and characterized the organization as “terroristic” but recently apologized for that label. In a tweet, he attributed DeFlock’s popularity to his company’s “inadequate response to the questions and concerns that people have about ALPR”. The company is adapting to the backlash, canceling an always-on recording feature, “human distress detection”, which was intended to detect screaming.

A local chapter of DeFlock, in Norfolk, Virginia, says it does not endorse vigilantes targeting Flock cameras but does not advocate against it, either.

The Virginia chapter is working to ensure the city either cancels or does not renew its contract with Flock, but so far it hasn’t had success, and members are particularly angry about speaking restrictions on the topic. At a city council meeting last month, the mayor enforced a rule about reducing repetitive comments to limit the number of speakers who wanted to share their concerns about Flock, the Virginian-Pilot reported.

“We recognize it’s the inevitable outcome of a system designed to prevent people’s voices from being heard,” said a DeFlock spokesperson.