I don’t like Flock cameras.
Let me get that out of the way right from the beginning, because I don’t want anybody reading this and thinking I’m secretly defending them. I have serious concerns about automated license plate readers, surveillance cameras, the amount of data these systems can collect, how long that data is retained, who gets access to it, and what happens when technology that was supposedly implemented for one purpose gets used for something else.
I don’t think we should blindly accept a society where cameras are increasingly watching where people drive, where they go, and potentially who they associate with.
Privacy matters.
But here’s the thing.
I’ve been seeing videos online of people protesting Flock cameras by destroying them, vandalizing them, covering them with various substances, or otherwise trying to interfere with them. I’ve even seen videos of someone literally taking a piss in front of one.
And every time I see this shit, I have the same reaction:
What the fuck are you doing?
You supposedly hate the surveillance.
You supposedly think these cameras are dangerous.
You supposedly believe they’re an invasion of privacy.
And your response is to walk directly in front of the surveillance camera and commit a crime while recording yourself doing it?
Congratulations.
You just made the surveillance system extremely useful.
That’s the part that blows my mind.
If you believe Flock cameras are a bad idea, there are legitimate arguments you can make against them. You can argue about civil liberties. You can argue about data retention. You can argue about whether private companies should operate surveillance infrastructure. You can argue about government access to collected information. You can argue about whether automated license plate readers should be deployed in neighborhoods in the first place.
You can organize.
You can protest.
You can write about the issue.
You can attend public meetings.
You can contact elected officials.
You can challenge the policies surrounding the cameras.
You can support legislation regulating them.
You can file lawsuits where appropriate.
You can educate people about the technology.
There are plenty of ways to oppose surveillance without committing vandalism.
But destroying the fucking camera is probably one of the dumbest strategies imaginable.
Because the camera doesn’t need to be angry.
It doesn’t need to chase you.
It doesn’t need to identify itself.
It doesn’t need to yell, “Hey! Stop!”
It just needs to record what you’re doing.
And if you’re standing there destroying it, congratulations: you’ve potentially created evidence of your own criminal activity.
This is where some of these online videos become almost comical.
Imagine being so opposed to surveillance that you decide to demonstrate your opposition by committing an act directly in front of the surveillance device.
That’s like protesting security cameras by robbing the building they’re watching.
It’s like protesting police body cameras by announcing your plans to commit a crime while standing directly in front of one.
It’s like saying, “I hate evidence!” and then voluntarily creating evidence.
And then, somehow, people make it even worse by POSTING THE VIDEO ONLINE.
What?
You didn’t just potentially give the camera evidence.
You made a second copy of the evidence.
You uploaded it to the internet.
Now random people can watch you do it.
And depending on what exactly happened, you’ve potentially given law enforcement, investigators, journalists, attorneys, or anybody else interested in the incident another source of information.
That’s not sticking it to the surveillance state.
That’s handing the surveillance state a fucking gift basket.
And I think there’s another problem here that people aren’t considering: this shit can encourage other people to commit crimes.
When somebody posts a video of themselves destroying a Flock camera and presents it as some badass act of resistance, somebody else might watch it and think, “Hell yeah, I’m gonna do that too.”
Then another person does it.
Then another.
Pretty soon, something that started as a political protest becomes a trend where people are competing to see who can destroy the most cameras or come up with the most ridiculous way to vandalize one.
And suddenly people aren’t discussing privacy anymore.
They’re discussing vandalism.
They’re discussing arrests.
They’re discussing property damage.
They’re discussing whether somebody should be prosecuted.
The actual policy debate gets completely buried.
That’s a shame because there actually IS a legitimate conversation to have about surveillance technology.
I’m not opposed to questioning technology simply because the technology is being used by police.
In fact, I think we SHOULD question it.
Any time governments or private companies collect information about ordinary people, we should be asking questions.
What information is collected?
Why is it collected?
How long is it stored?
Who can access it?
Can other agencies access it?
Can private companies access it?
Can the information be sold?
What safeguards exist?
What happens if the database gets hacked?
What happens if somebody abuses their access?
What oversight exists?
What happens when the technology gets used for a purpose beyond the original justification?
Those are serious questions.
And they deserve serious answers.
But you know what doesn’t make those questions stronger?
Taking a baseball bat to the fucking camera.
It doesn’t make the argument more persuasive.
It makes it easier for people to dismiss the entire movement as a bunch of idiots breaking shit.
And that’s especially frustrating because you can be completely opposed to Flock cameras while also believing that vandalizing them is wrong.
Those positions aren’t contradictory.
They’re perfectly compatible.
I can say, “I think this surveillance technology is a terrible idea,” while simultaneously saying, “Don’t destroy the equipment.”
I can say, “I think people deserve privacy,” while also saying, “Don’t commit crimes.”
I can say, “I think government surveillance should have strict limitations,” while also saying, “Don’t turn your political protest into a criminal case.”
That’s not hypocrisy.
That’s consistency.
If anything, I think opposing Flock cameras while refusing to vandalize them makes the argument stronger.
Because then you’re actually forcing people to engage with the substance of your criticism.
You’re not giving them an easy way out.
If I tell you that Flock cameras raise serious civil-liberties concerns, you have to actually respond to those concerns.
But if I destroy the camera while recording myself, you don’t have to discuss my argument anymore.
You can just point at the video and say, “This person committed a crime.”
Conversation over.
And that’s exactly why I think people need to be smarter about activism.
Not every act of defiance is effective.
Sometimes the most dramatic thing you can do is also the least useful thing you can do.
Breaking something feels powerful.
It can feel satisfying.
It can produce an exciting video.
It can get likes.
It can get shared.
It can make you feel like you’ve taken direct action.
But political activism isn’t supposed to be about making yourself feel badass.
It’s supposed to accomplish something.
And if your strategy results in you getting arrested while simultaneously generating evidence against yourself, I’m not sure you’ve accomplished much.
Especially when the technology you’re protesting is literally designed to collect information about vehicles and movements.
You’re basically volunteering to demonstrate why surveillance technology can be useful.
That’s the irony.
And then there’s the person taking a leak in front of the camera.
Look, I understand the impulse.
I understand the absurdity.
I understand why someone might think it’s funny.
But if your grand political statement against surveillance is, “I’m going to urinate in front of the surveillance camera,” you’ve officially entered the territory where the protest has become a joke.
And again, you’re recording it.
Why?
Why are we filming ourselves committing crimes and then uploading the footage?
What happened to having some fucking common sense?
You don’t have to love the police.
You don’t have to love surveillance technology.
You don’t have to trust Flock.
You don’t have to believe the government’s explanation for why these cameras are necessary.
You don’t even have to think these cameras should exist.
But maybe, just maybe, don’t commit a crime directly in front of the thing you’re protesting.
That’s not revolutionary.
That’s stupid.
And I want to make another distinction here because I don’t want people misunderstanding what I’m saying.
I’m not arguing that people should simply shut up and accept surveillance.
Quite the opposite.
If you think Flock cameras are an invasion of privacy, say so loudly.
Make the argument.
Research the technology.
Find out how the systems work.
Look into local government contracts.
Ask questions about data retention.
Ask who has access.
Demand transparency.
Go to public meetings.
Organize peaceful demonstrations.
Support organizations working on privacy and civil liberties.
Vote based on the issue.
Write about it.
Talk about it.
Challenge it legally when there is a legitimate legal basis to do so.
There are so many ways to fight something without committing a crime.
And those methods have one huge advantage:
They make it much harder for your opponents to dismiss you.
That’s something activists of every political persuasion should understand.
If you’re trying to convince people that a policy is wrong, don’t hand them an excuse to ignore your argument.
Make them answer the argument.
That’s the goal.
So yeah, I don’t like Flock cameras.
I think there are legitimate privacy concerns surrounding them.
I think surveillance technology deserves scrutiny.
I think people should be asking uncomfortable questions about who collects information, how that information is stored, who gets access to it, and what safeguards exist.
But I also think destroying the cameras is fucking stupid.
And posting yourself destroying them online is somehow even stupider.
You’re not defeating the surveillance system.
You’re potentially documenting your own crime for the entire internet to see.
If you’re going to fight surveillance, at least be smart about it.
Don’t give the camera exactly what it wants.
And for the love of God, don’t upload the evidence yourself.