Why People Won't Stop Destroying Flock Surveillance Cameras
The United States has long been a nation caught between two extremes: not wanting to be monitored 24/7 and totally fine with near-constant surveillance. The pro-surveillance state folks don’t have to do much to assure their world into being. They just have to sit back and let a mixture of fear and corporate influence take over. The anti-surveillance folks take matters into their own hands, like smashing Flock cameras whenever they pop up in a new city.
The pattern was documented by journalist Brian Merchant in his newsletter Blood in the Machine. Brian has tracked a growing, seemingly uncoordinated campaign against the company’s networked license plate readers and AI-powered monitoring systems. People are not taking kindly to the creeping surveillance state, as evidenced by all the smashed Flock cameras folks are leaving in their wake.
In a small city just outside of San Diego, two Flock cameras were recently destroyed weeks after city officials voted to extend their contract despite vocal public opposition. Similar incidents have been reported in two Oregon towns, Eugene and Springfield, where at least six cameras were cut down last year.
In Suffolk, Virginia, 41-year-old Jefferey S. Sovern was arrested after allegedly wrecking 13 cameras, claiming it was an act of defense of his Fourth Amendment privacy rights.”
The Growing Revolt Against Flock’s Surveillance Cameras
Flock is valued at $7.5 billion and is active in around 6,000 communities in the United States. Its bread-and-butter surveillance moneymaker is automatic license plate readers, which collect vehicle data that can be stored and accessed without a warrant. Critics argue that is a tactic that exists in a constitutional gray area.
The data has reportedly been accessed by federal agencies such as ICE, sometimes without local authorities being notified. In one case out of Georgia, a police chief was charged with using Flock data to stalk private citizens.
Unease and flat-out hatred of the company have spread across the country, with rage intensifying after Ring briefly partnered with Flock, a backlash that was a little too intense for Ring. After all, Ring is a company trying to position itself as a ‘kinder, softer version of mass surveillance.’ Ring quickly ended its relationship with Flock.
If you don’t have a taste for destruction and simply want to be made aware of the presence of a Flock camera to avoid a certain area, you can use the activist site DeFlock, which uses your location data to track Flock cameras in your area.
Excerpt From “Why People Won't Stop Destroying Flock Surveillance Cameras”, Luis Prada - VICE
https://apple.news/AoEQikD6fQgOyLF7Upc9I3w
Dotworkz Take
Yes VICE excerpt highlights a simple reality: when communities feel watched, the hardware becomes the symbol, and symbols get targeted. If a city is going to deploy LPR systems like Flock, the deployment has to assume vandalism attempts (impact, prying, spray paint, cutting, heat, and “quick-hit” destruction) and design around it.
- Put the camera & LPR electronics in a real protective enclosure
- Mount Flock/LPR cameras inside a Dotworkz D2, D3, or BASH housing, so the system isn’t exposed as a “grab-and-smash” target.
- D2/D3: best for all-weather protection, sun/heat shielding, and adding internal space for power/PoE accessories.
- BASH: best when you expect deliberate impact and repeated attacks, a “take the hit and keep working” option.
- Remove “easy access” points
- Most vandalism succeeds because someone can reach the device quickly and apply force.
- Use high mounting positions plus purpose-built arms/brackets so the enclosure isn’t reachable from standing height.
- Route cabling internally (or in rigid conduit) and eliminate exposed loops that can be yanked or cut.
- Add physical anti-tamper layers
- Inside the enclosure, use:
- Security fasteners, internal locking, and tamper-resistant pass-throughs
- Impact-rated clear windows (so the optics stay protected without compromising image quality)
- Optional sun/heat management so “heat sabotage” doesn’t cause shutdowns
- Make vandalism a bad bet (deterrence + evidence)
- Pair the protected LPR with:
- White light / strobes and two-way audio (warning + attention draw)
- A secondary overview camera aimed at the pole/approach path (so the attacker is recorded even if they target the LPR)
- Design for rapid recovery
- Even the best hardening won’t stop every attempt, the goal is uptime.
- Standardized enclosure + mount = faster swap
- Spares strategy (one ready-to-go housing kit per zone)
- Remote health alerts (tamper, vibration, door-open, power anomalies)
Bottom Line :
- If your security/LPR/AI camera keeps getting vandalized, upgrade the protection strategy, not just the camera.
- When cameras are shot at with small arms, deploy Dotworkz housings with ballistic shield protection to stop small-arms damage and keep systems online.
- If cables or poles are cut, fortify the install with reinforced mounting locations, internal cable routing, and hardened brackets.
- And when cameras are smashed or struck, step up to the Dotworkz BASH housing, engineered for high-impact, vandal-resistant protection in extreme environments.
- The right combination of ballistic shielding, fortified mounts, and anti-shock enclosures transforms vulnerable surveillance cameras into hardened, mission-ready security assets.