A growing underground network is waging war on Flock Safety's license plate readers, the ubiquitous black cameras now mounted on poles in thousands of American communities. Armed with spray paint, wire cutters, and creative obstruction tactics, activists are systematically disabling the devices faster than the company can replace them.
The man known online as NoMark, a Minneapolis-based influencer with over 700,000 followers, has become the face of this movement. Wearing a black mask and documenting his exploits, NoMark has disabled more than a dozen Flock cameras by scaling poles, blocking lenses with tape, and severing power lines. His June takedown of a camera near a Taco Bell took an hour of nervous pacing. Now he moves with practiced efficiency, completing jobs in minutes.
"I'm not afraid to do things if I think they're right," NoMark said. "These things are coming up so fast across the country that this is kind of the only way to combat them."
He is far from alone. The Guardian has identified at least 33 documented instances of Flock camera destruction across 23 states, each carrying explicit anti-surveillance messaging. Activists are employing increasingly creative tactics: paint bombing devices, planting American flags at damaged sites, 3D printing obstruction objects, and leaving messages like "hahaha get wrecked ya surveilling fucks." Some are even forging cease-and-desist letters from Flock itself.
Flock Safety, valued at $8.4 billion and based in Georgia, operates roughly 6,000 cameras across nearly every state, scanning license plates billions of times monthly. The company has built its business on the premise that these devices protect communities by alerting police when suspect vehicles appear. But privacy advocates argue the cameras enable mass surveillance without warrants, tracking ordinary citizens' movements through routine public activity.
The company disputes this characterization. In a February blog post, Flock wrote that its cameras are "not mass surveillance tools" and that the system "cannot track vehicles, much less individual people." Yet law enforcement has repeatedly misused the technology, with several officers losing their jobs after accessing Flock data to stalk individuals. A 404 Media investigation revealed cops searching not just for license plates but for people with distinctive tattoos or specific clothing.
The escalating conflict has drawn law enforcement attention. Dozens of state fusion centers this summer distributed memos directing officers to monitor anti-Flock activism and report camera vandalism to federal intelligence hubs. One Wisconsin intelligence agency urged increased police presence at planned protests. Simultaneously, more than 80 cities have cancelled or rejected Flock contracts in recent years, including Austin and Denver, though concerns persist about existing deployments.
Some vigilantes are facing serious consequences. Jeffrey Sovern in Suffolk, Virginia, was charged with destruction of property after allegedly damaging a dozen cameras. Jevon Martinez was arrested in New Mexico for allegedly destroying 13 cameras. Neither has admitted guilt, but both have voiced constitutional objections to the surveillance infrastructure.
Sovern wrote on a GoFundMe for legal expenses that his case could become "a catalyst in a bigger movement to roll back intrusive surveillance." Martinez told local news he plans to keep destroying cameras because "they are a clear and present threat to public safety."
The online backlash to Flock has been extraordinary. Social media commenters rally around accused vandals, posting fictional alibis claiming to have seen them volunteering at soup kitchens or rescuing dogs when cameras were destroyed. Reddit users share 3D printing files designed to obstruct lenses without vandalism. NoMark receives dozens of daily messages from supporters asking how to get involved.
He distributes safety advice: drive past cameras infrequently, strike late at night when witnesses are absent, cover your face and hands completely. "Always cover the camera," he instructs.
Mainstream privacy advocacy has pursued a different path. The grassroots organization DeFlock maps over 115,000 ALPRs nationwide, allows users to check if their license plates have been searched, and organizes public comment at city council meetings. While some DeFlock chapters quietly decline to endorse vigilantism, they equally refuse to condemn it. A Norfolk chapter spokesperson said destruction is "the inevitable outcome of a system designed to prevent people's voices from being heard" after the city mayor restricted repetitive public comment about Flock contracts.
Congress is stirring. A Texas lawmaker introduced legislation requiring warrants for Flock camera data. Privacy advocates also fear Immigration and Customs Enforcement will exploit legal loopholes to access Flock feeds for deportation enforcement.
Flock is adapting. The company published a blog post offering protection plans for damaged cameras and cancelled an always-on recording feature that could detect human screaming. CEO Garrett Langley initially called DeFlock "terroristic" before apologizing, later admitting the company failed to address legitimate public concerns about ALPR technology.
NoMark believes systemic change requires both pressure on elected officials and direct action. He attends city council meetings unmasked but sees them as slow. "The more time you take, the more data they get on people," he said.
Author James Rodriguez: "This movement reflects a genuine desperation with mainstream channels, but vandalism is ultimately a gamble that courts will accept privacy arguments over property destruction claims."
Comments