Law enforcement agencies across the United States have begun monitoring what they are calling “anti-tech violent extremism,” a newly coined term that appears to target opposition to the rapidly expanding artificial intelligence sector and the data centers that power it. A report from Wired, based on internal memos from the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and local fusion centers, reveals that activities such as photographing an AI data center are now being classified as suspicious behavior that can help identify “adversarial actors.” This development raises serious concerns about the scope of surveillance, the criminalization of dissent, and the future of peaceful activism in the digital age.
What is “anti-tech violent extremism”?
The term appears to have been introduced internally by law enforcement bodies without any public-facing documentation. According to the Wired report, a New York Intelligence and Counterterrorism Bureau document warns that the rapid adoption of AI technology is creating a “chaotic atmosphere” that could “fuel large-scale protests that devolve into civil unrest and anti-tech violent extremist activity.” While no specific violent acts have been attributed to this new category, the labeling itself is enough to set off alarms among civil liberties advocates. The Northern Virginia Regional Intelligence Center (NOVA RIC) has listed “observation” and “photography” of AI data centers as defined suspicious activities that can be reported through Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs).
Suspicious Activity Reports have long been criticized for their broad and permissive standards. As Spencer Reynolds, Senior Counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, told Wired, “These reports are incredibly unreliable, often about vague or innocent behavior, issued under permissive standards. These reports, often received in large volumes, allow officers to inject their own biases and see what they want to see in the facts.” The inclusion of photography in this category directly impacts journalists, researchers, and everyday activists who may be documenting the physical expansion of data centers—many of which are controversial due to their enormous energy consumption, water usage, and environmental impact.
Background: The rise of data center opposition
Opposition to data centers and large-scale AI infrastructure has been growing for years. In communities from Virginia to Arizona and even abroad, residents have protested the construction of massive server farms that strain local electricity grids and consume millions of gallons of water for cooling. Some groups have organized public meetings, filed lawsuits, and staged demonstrations. Others have taken photographs to document construction or to monitor compliance with environmental regulations. These are traditional forms of lawful activism. However, under the new “anti-tech violent extremism” framework, such everyday activities could be flagged and shared across a network of fusion centers—information hubs that collect and analyze threat intelligence at the state and local level.
The fusion center system was established after the 9/11 attacks to improve information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement. But critics have long argued that fusion centers lack proper oversight and often blur the line between legitimate intelligence gathering and unconstitutional surveillance of political groups. A 2012 Senate subcommittee report found that fusion centers “produced intelligence that was often irrelevant, useless, or even harmful” and that they “disseminated information of little or no value.” The new focus on anti-tech extremism may exacerbate these problems.
Expanding the watchlist: From terrorism to tech opposition
The watchlisting system in the United States has historically been associated with terrorism investigations, but over the years it has expanded to cover other categories such as “domestic violent extremism,” which has included activists from both the far right and far left. Now, with the addition of anti-tech extremism, the net widens further. The FBI and DHS have not publicly defined the legal boundaries of this category, leaving it open to interpretation by local officers and fusion center analysts. This lack of clarity is especially concerning because the definition could be applied to anyone who criticizes AI development or engages in nonviolent protest outside data centers.
Legal experts point to past examples where broad labels have been used to justify surveillance of social movements. During the civil rights era, the FBI’s COINTELPRO program targeted activists who opposed racial segregation. In more recent years, environmental activists have been monitored under “eco-terrorism” labels, and animal rights protesters have faced aggressive investigation. The pattern is familiar: a new technology or industry attracts pushback, and law enforcement responds by categorizing that pushback as a security threat. The current rise of generative AI and its potential societal harms—job displacement, bias, misinformation, and energy waste—has sparked widespread debate. Many of these criticisms come from mainstream academics, journalists, and community groups who have no intention of resorting to violence.
Chilling effect on journalism and research
Photographing infrastructure has long been a tool for investigative journalists and transparency advocates. Data centers are often shrouded in secrecy; companies like Google, Amazon, and Microsoft do not always disclose exact locations or environmental impact data. Taking pictures of a data center can be essential for verifying claims about construction, energy use, or water consumption. If such photography is now considered suspicious activity, it could deter reporters and researchers from doing their jobs. Fusion centers may then share SARs with private companies, potentially leading to trespassing accusations or even legal harassment.
Moreover, the labeling of “observation” as suspicious could include simply standing near a data center and taking notes. This is reminiscent of the government’s attempts to monitor “suspicious activity” at other critical infrastructure sites, such as power plants and military bases. But while those locations have clear security clearances, data centers are often located in ordinary office parks or industrial zones with public access. The ambiguity creates a gray area where normal conduct becomes suspicious.
Potential for misuse and racial bias
Civil rights organizations are particularly concerned that the anti-tech extremism designation could be applied disproportionately to communities of color or to activists who already face heightened police scrutiny. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund has noted that SARs are often filed based on subjective criteria, and that the system “allows officers to inject their own biases.” If activists photographing data centers are predominantly people of color or members of marginalized groups, they could be more likely to end up on watchlists. The chilling effect is not uniform: those with less social capital or legal resources may be more afraid to engage in lawful protest.
Legal and policy responses
The emergence of this new watchlist category has already drawn criticism from think tanks and civil liberties organizations. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have historically challenged expansions of the suspicious activity reporting system. In response to the Wired report, some groups are calling on the FBI and DHS to publicly define “anti-tech violent extremism” and to limit its application to actual violent behavior, rather than lawful observation or protest. Reynolds of the NAACP LDF stated: “As people continue to organize for a better future, we’re likely to see more surveillance and criminalization of this opposition.”
There is also a broader legal question: does the First Amendment protect the right to photograph data centers? The U.S. Supreme Court has held that photographing matters of public interest in public spaces is protected speech. However, law enforcement agencies argue that certain types of surveillance or observation can be indicative of pre-attack behaviors. But the burden of proof remains low for SARs, which are merely intelligence leads—not probable cause. Once an individual is flagged, their name may appear in law enforcement databases for years without any charges ever being filed.
Historical context: The evolution of watchlists
Watchlists have existed in various forms since the mid-20th century, but they expanded dramatically after the September 11 attacks. The Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) now contains millions of names. The process for getting on and off the list is opaque, and many people have been added based on mistaken identity or tenuous connections. The addition of “anti-tech extremism” could further swell the database. Because fusion centers share information across jurisdictions, a SAR filed in one state could affect an individual’s ability to travel, board flights, or even gain employment.
Data center protests have already occurred in multiple locations. In late 2023, activists in the Netherlands protested the energy consumption of a large data center near Amsterdam. In the U.S., residents of Prince William County, Virginia, have filed lawsuits over the construction of a massive data center complex that they claim will harm the environment. These are not fringe movements; they involve local politicians, community boards, and environmental groups. Calling them potential “violent extremists” is a serious step that could delegitimize legitimate democratic debate.
The role of private companies
The new watchlist category also raises questions about the role of the tech industry itself. Many data centers are owned or operated by major companies like Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud. These firms often have close relationships with local law enforcement and may have encouraged the surveillance of protesters. In some cases, they have hired private security firms to monitor activity around their facilities. The new memos from fusion centers suggest that law enforcement is proactively looking for threats, possibly at the request of the industry. This entanglement between private corporations and police surveillance is a growing concern in the digital age.
If companies are feeding intelligence to law enforcement or receiving SARs, it creates a feedback loop: peaceful opposition to AI expansion could be treated as a security threat, making it harder for communities to push back against corporate interests. This is particularly problematic given the enormous economic and political power of the AI industry. Law enforcement agencies may be reluctant to question the requests of a major employer or taxpayer in their jurisdiction.
The anti-tech extremism label is just one part of a larger trend. For years, the U.S. government has been monitoring “domestic violent extremism” in a way that has been criticized for targeting anti-fascist activists, environmentalists, and racial justice protesters. Adding a tech-focused category fits this pattern. At the same time, federal agencies have not devoted similar resources to tracking extremist violence from far-right groups or white supremacists, many of whom have used social media and AI tools for radicalization. Critics argue that the imbalance reveals a bias: activism that challenges corporate power or technological orthodoxy is deemed more threatening than other forms of extremism.
What this means for the future of free expression
The implications of this new watchlist are far-reaching. Journalists covering the AI industry may think twice before taking photographs of data centers. Activists may avoid planning protests near these facilities. Academics studying the environmental impact of AI could be deterred from fieldwork. The very act of raising questions about the direction of technological development could be construed as suspicious. In a democratic society, such a chilling effect undermines open debate and accountability.
Civil liberties groups are urging the public to understand that watching and documenting are not crimes. Photography of public spaces is protected by the First Amendment. Yet the existence of a suspicious activity report system that encourages reporting of “observation” or “photography” inherently pressures people to self-censor. The best defense is public awareness and continued legal challenges. Already, there are efforts to push for transparency: to force the FBI and DHS to release documents defining anti-tech extremism and to show how many individuals have been flagged under this category.
International parallels
The United States is not alone in monitoring tech-related activism. In the United Kingdom, police have used terrorism legislation to arrest climate activists who blocked roads near data centers. In Australia, proposed laws could criminalize the publication of certain information about critical infrastructure, including data centers. The global trend is toward tighter surveillance of those who oppose the digital economy. However, the U.S. fusion center system is uniquely decentralized, making oversight difficult. As Reynolds pointed out, SARs are often filed under permissive standards and are shared widely, leading to potential abuse.
The new reports from New York and Northern Virginia indicate that the watchlist is already operational. It is not a future possibility; it is happening now. Law enforcement officers are being trained to identify “adversarial actors” based on their behavior at data centers. Anyone who has taken a photo of a server farm or even made a note about its location could now be in a database. The burden falls on individuals to prove that their activities were innocent—a reversal of the traditional presumption of innocence.
At the same time, the technology industry continues to grow at breakneck speed. AI models require enormous computational resources, and data center construction shows no signs of slowing. The conflict between communities and companies will likely intensify. As that happens, the temptation to label opposition as extremism will grow. It is essential that the public, journalists, and lawmakers remain vigilant to prevent the erosion of civil liberties in the name of security. The line between peaceful protest and violent extremism must not be blurred by a vague, unaccountable watchlist system.
Source: Android Authority News