GoKawiilAmericans have declared war on Flock cameras. They’ve protested them, damaged them, and destroyed them. This is only the beginning.
The spontaneous and decentralized nature of the vigilante protests is also what makes them difficult to suppress. There isn’t a uniform method of disruption; people have done everything from unplugging, smashing, stealing, and spray-painting the surveillance devices to taking less destructive actions like physically blocking the cameras for hours. Some of the culprits have been caught, but that clearly hasn’t dissuaded others from taking matters into their own hands.
“Nonviolent direct action is a recognized and established tactic, and it’s unsurprising that we are seeing some people are resorting to that.”
Support for those taking drastic measures to get rid of the cameras has also become commonplace online. Last week, a police sheriff in Lumpkin County, Georgia, took to Facebook to announce a $1,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of whoever destroyed a Flock Safety camera installed near a local park. “I hope you’re happy with this. It was to keep our kids safe,” Sheriff Stacy Jarrard said in a video, admonishing the unknown perpetrators while unintentionally confirming what many people already knew: Police are using the cameras to do a lot more than simply give out speeding tickets.
The response was not what he was expecting. Jarrard’s post has since received more than 30,000 comments, the vast majority opposing the cameras and many mocking the police and even praising the vandals. “Looks like a Constitutional wind blew it over,” taunted one commenter. “Looks like somebody fixed it for you guys,” wrote another. Others congratulated the culprits, saying those taking direct action to remove the cameras in towns and cities across the US are “doing the lord’s work.” In response to the backlash, Jarrard changed his tone, posting a new video that admitted the need for privacy measures, but stopped short of promising the cameras would be taken down. “We need more safeguards in motion,” Jarrard said. “I’m going to listen to you.”
A few weeks earlier, in suburban New York, police reported a rash of vandalism against Flock cameras in Long Island’s Suffolk County, where four of the cameras had been unplugged, spray-painted, and run over with a car. An article about the incidents in the conservative publication New York Post also attracted a mass of comments opposing the cameras and supporting the people who destroyed them. “They’ve tried to put them up by my house, but someone keeps running them over,” one reader commented on the Post article. “I bet they have gone through a dozen, so far. Thanks to whoever is doing it.”
Support for Flock vigilantes has gone beyond internet comments. In one recent case, an Air Force engineer accused of cutting down 13 Flock cameras in Virginia has received over $44,000 for his legal defense from supporters via GoFundMe. In another, felony charges against an alleged Flock vandal in Ohio were dismissed after a grand jury declined to indict the suspect.
The fact that so many people seem to not only oppose the cameras but openly support those stealing and destroying them is a historically significant milestone for the anti-Big Tech movement. Activist historians often refer to this approach as a “diversity of tactics” — the idea that movements become stronger when they tolerate those taking extralegal direct action and reject narratives that divide them into “good” and “bad” protesters. As author Margaret Killjoy recently argued in a piece about Flock vandalism: “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.”
Flock camera destruction isn’t just popular — in some cases, it has also proven highly effective at getting rid of them. Earlier this month, police in Winona, Minnesota, said they would not reinstall the city’s eight Flock cameras after all of them were stolen, citing “growing concerns about trust in policing.” On August 3rd, following two incidents where Flock cameras were destroyed, police in Burnet County, Texas, announced that they had removed all Flock cameras from the area.
Like the widespread resistance to AI data centers, support for anti-Flock vigilantism is part of a rapidly growing public sentiment that cuts across geography and political allegiances. The cameras, which have been heavily criticized for their widespread abuse and for being deployed without public hearings or community approval, have quickly become another populist flashpoint of a growing bipartisan movement against tech industry excess. From coastal urban sprawls to rural areas in deep-red states, the message is clear: Folks absolutely despise these things and want them gone by any means necessary.
... continue reading