Article content

In only a few years, the surveillance start-up Flock has installed more than 100,000 licence plate reader cameras across the United States.

Article content

But a grassroots movement upset over privacy concerns is fighting back — even going so far as systematically vandalizing the equipment.

Article content

Article content

The first time he decided to trash one of the cameras, a self-styled vigilante wearing all black and known as Nomark says he was “super nervous.”

Article content

Article content

Now, after disabling about 30 of the devices near his home in the Minneapolis area, he told AFP: “I’m not really as scared anymore.”

Article content

Article content

Flock cameras are installed by police departments, homeowners’ associations and businesses, ostensibly to catch criminals in the act. Data is uploaded to Flock’s cloud and can be shared with subscribers.

Article content

But opponents are outraged at what they say is a dangerous tool that can be used to infringe on American privacy and civil liberties.

Article content

At just 20 years old, Nomark offers his 500,000 Instagram followers a how-to guide for rendering the cameras useless, raising awareness about the devices.

Article content

His detractors point out — correctly — that his actions are illegal, but like-minded individuals have followed suit nationwide over the past few weeks.

Article content

Instead of being dismissed as a radical fringe outfit, the anti-Flock movement is taking hold.

Article content

Its proponents have been active online for months, creating crowdsourced maps of cameras, sharing ways to block their lenses, and hailing the “heroes” who are arrested for destroying them.

Article content

The Facebook group DeFlock America has more than 600,000 members, and is gaining thousands more by the day.

Article content

Article content

Massive database

Article content

Article content

Flock cameras differ from traditional surveillance cameras in that they do not record video footage.

Article content

Instead, they take still images of vehicles, capturing the make, model, colour, licence plate data and other distinguishing features such as bumper stickers.

Article content

Article content

And unlike classic surveillance cameras, which are not networked, this data is stored for up to a month and shareable, sometimes across state lines.

Article content

Opponents say this gives police an overwhelming look into the private lives of law-abiding Americans.

Article content

Jon Bridges, a police official in Virginia’s state capital Richmond, says that for “practically any crime that has a connection with a vehicle or a vehicle involved, we will at least query the database to see if there’s anything there.”

Article content

His department has used Flock since 2023.

Article content

Bridges gave an example of how useful the technology can be: during the investigation of a domestic-related double homicide in May, police quickly identified a suspect who fled the scene in his pick-up truck.

Article content

Detectives retrieved his licence plate data and entered an alert in Flock’s system. When he appeared on another camera, officers in a neighbouring county arrested him.

Article content

Potential abuses

Article content

Detractors fear that this allows officers to track vehicles without warrants, opening the door to a host of possible abuses of power.

Article content

According to an investigation done by The Washington Post, at least 50 police officers have been accused of misusing the Flock system, most of them to spy on the comings and goings of their romantic partners or exes.

Article content

In other cases reported in U.S. media, cops used Flock to track women who had abortions — illegal in several U.S. states. Some illegally sent data from the system to immigration agents.

Article content

Flock CEO Garrett Langley has accused some opponents of being “terrorists,” stoking the fire.