A recent investigation has uncovered that U.S. law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, have started monitoring a newly defined category of threat: “anti-tech violent extremism.” According to internal memos and reports reviewed by Wired, this term refers to individuals or groups who oppose the rapid expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure, particularly data centers. The shift marks a significant expansion of domestic surveillance, with potential implications for activists, journalists, and ordinary citizens who take an interest in the physical footprint of the tech industry.
What is “anti-tech violent extremism”?
The term appears for the first time in unpublished law enforcement documents. While no public-facing FBI or DHS materials have used this phrase, regional fusion centers—joint task forces that share intelligence between federal, state, and local agencies—have adopted it. A report from the New York Intelligence and Counterterrorism Bureau warns that the “chaotic atmosphere” generated by rapid AI adoption “may fuel large-scale protests that devolve into civil unrest and anti-tech violent extremist activity.” The Northern Virginia Regional Intelligence Center explicitly lists “observation” and “photography” of AI data centers as suspicious behaviors that may help identify “adversarial actors.”
Background: The rise of AI data centers
Data centers are massive facilities that house the servers and computing hardware needed to train and run large AI models. Companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta have poured billions into constructing new centers across the United States and abroad. These facilities consume enormous amounts of electricity and water, leading to environmental concerns and local opposition. In places like Northern Virginia, home to the world’s largest concentration of data centers (often called “Data Center Alley”), residents have protested noise, light pollution, and strain on the power grid. Similarly, in Arizona and Oregon, community groups have opposed new data centers due to water usage in drought-prone regions.
Surveillance and civil liberties
The classification of photography as suspicious activity has alarmed civil rights organizations. Spencer Reynolds, Senior Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told Wired that suspicious activity reports “are incredibly unreliable, often about vague or innocent behavior, issued under permissive standards.” He warned that these reports “allow officers to inject their own biases and see what they want to see in the facts.” Reynolds expressed concern that the “anti-tech extremism” label could be applied broadly to include anyone who participates in lawful protest or documentation of tech infrastructure.
This is not the first time law enforcement has used vague definitions to monitor activists. During the 2017 protests against the Dakota Access Pipeline, the FBI and DHS monitored environmental activists under the label “eco-terrorism.” Similarly, during the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, fusion centers circulated intelligence on “Antifa” and “anarchist extremists,” often based on social media posts or legal activities. The history of such watchlisting shows that broad categories can chill free speech and discourage civic engagement.
How fusion centers operate
Fusion centers were established after the 9/11 attacks to improve information sharing among law enforcement agencies. There are now more than 70 such centers across the country. They collect tips, public records, and reports from private security firms, then analyze them for potential threats. Critics argue that fusion centers lack transparency and accountability. A 2012 Senate report found that fusion centers often produced “shoddy” intelligence and wasted resources. Yet they remain a key part of the U.S. counterterrorism apparatus. The inclusion of AI opposition as a focus area could lead to increased scrutiny of tech critics, journalists writing about data center construction, and even amateur photographers documenting their local landscape.
Legal implications for activists
Under the U.S. legal system, photographing buildings from public spaces is generally protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that there is no expectation of privacy in public places. However, law enforcement can still collect and store that information as part of a suspicious activity report (SAR). SARs are not public, but they can be used to justify further investigation, surveillance, or even inclusion on watchlists. Individuals who are reported may face no charges but could encounter difficulties with travel, employment, or government benefits. The Department of Justice’s guidelines allow for the collection of information on protected activities as long as there is a “reasonable suspicion” of criminal intent. Critics argue that “intent” is too easily inferred from membership in advocacy groups or participation in protests.
Examples of AI-related activism
Opposition to AI takes many forms. Some groups focus on the ethical implications of AI decision-making, such as bias in hiring algorithms or facial recognition. Others object to the massive energy consumption of data centers, which contributes to climate change. Still others worry about job displacement caused by automation. In response, organizations like the Algorithmic Justice League, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and various climate justice groups have organized protests, published reports, and filed lawsuits. One well-known action was the 2023 blockade of a Google data center in California by the group “Direct Action Everywhere,” which protested the company’s use of AI in factory farming. While such actions are often non-violent, they can still be labeled as “extremist” if the rhetoric becomes heated.
What the future holds
The new focus on anti-tech extremism comes as the AI industry faces mounting public scrutiny. High-profile figures like Elon Musk and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt have publicly warned about the existential risks of unregulated AI development. Yet the industry continues to push for rapid deployment, securing billions in government subsidies and contracts. Law enforcement’s interest in protecting AI infrastructure suggests that the government is aligning itself with corporate interests, potentially criminalizing dissent. As Spencer Reynolds noted, “As people continue to organize for a better future, we’re likely to see more surveillance and criminalization of this opposition.”
For now, the immediate risk is that individuals who lawfully document the expansion of data centers—by taking photos from public sidewalks, for example—may find themselves flagged in law enforcement databases. The long-term risk is that anti-tech activism will be treated with the same suspicion as terrorism, eroding the distinction between legitimate protest and criminal activity. In a democracy, the right to express dissent, even harshly, is fundamental. But when that dissent is met with secret watchlists and surveillance, the boundaries of free expression are tested.
Source: Android Authority News