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. 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”. 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.

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.”

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.

Law enforcement is aware of the backlash and responding. Dozens of state fusion centers circulated memos across law enforcement agencies directing officers to monitor anti-Flock advocacy as part of a directive to protect national security.

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.