Yves here. This article discusses a recent wave of grassroots protests against the surveillance posed by automated license plate readers (ALPRs) and draws an intriguing parallel to the Boston Tea Party, a pivotal event in American history.
By G. Patrick O’Brien, Assistant Professor of History, University of Tampa. Originally published at The Conversation
A grassroots movement opposing automated license plate readers (ALPRs) has gained significant traction across the United States.
ALPRs are AI-driven cameras that capture images of every vehicle that passes by. These systems convert raw data into searchable information available to anyone authorized to access it.
Currently, there are more than 130,000 ALPRs installed across U.S. streets, with over 5,000 law enforcement agencies utilizing devices made by Flock Safety. This company asserts that its cameras aid police in identifying and apprehending criminals while also reducing crime rates.
However, some police officers have misused the data collected by ALPRs. For example, a Kansas officer was sentenced to 18 months probation in April 2023 for using Flock cameras to stalk his estranged wife. Similarly, a Florida officer was terminated and arrested in March 2026 for using ALPR data to track a woman he had previously harassed on a film set. Additionally, activists filed a lawsuit in October 2021 against several California police departments for illegally sharing ALPR information with federal agencies and organizations like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The rising public concern has led numerous cities across the U.S. to cancel contracts with Flock Safety. In September 2026, Florida’s Department of Transportation revoked permits for ALPRs on its state highways.
Despite these actions, the backlash against these cameras continues to grow. In at least 36 states, critics have resorted to damaging or disabling ALPRs in a bid to address their concerns directly.
As a historian of the American Revolution, I identify striking similarities between the current resistance to ALPRs and the violent actions taken by colonists against British rule in the late 18th century.
Although the recent 250th anniversary celebrations of the nation’s founding fell short of reigniting widespread patriotism, the bipartisan movement opposing ALPRs suggests that the spirit of rebellion still resonates with many Americans today.
Challenges Faced by Early Colonists
From the outset, English colonists in North America posed challenges to the British government. Despite British hopes that investment in the colonies would enrich England, these ventures turned out to be more of a financial burden than a profit.
When British Parliament passed laws in the 1660s aimed at regulating trade, colonists along the Eastern Seaboard resorted to smuggling instead of compliance.
Colonial merchants and consumers opted to trade directly with other English colonists and with French and Dutch merchants, bypassing the control of ministers in London.
The British government struggled to enforce these regulations effectively.
The British Response
This situation changed in 1763, after British forces defeated the French Empire in North America at great cost. New Prime Minister George Grenville implemented a series of reforms intended to make the colonists finance their own military protection.
While many Americans believe that the Revolution was primarily a reaction to increased taxation, most reforms issued from London actually lowered taxes to discourage smuggling.
The deeper resentment stemmed from the imperial government’s growing interference in colonial life.
In 1767, Parliament passed a series of measures that raised revenue to fund the salaries of colonial governors, attorneys general, and judges. Concurrently, Parliament sent troops to cities like Boston to protect its officials. This led to strained community dynamics and resulted in frequent violent encounters between British soldiers and colonists.
Colonial Violence Erupts
However, more radical leaders felt that decisive action was necessary.
On the night of December 16, 1773, members of the paramilitary group the Sons of Liberty dumped nearly £10,000 worth of tea owned by the British East India Company into Boston Harbor, equivalent to nearly $2 million today.
Weeks later, the Sons of Liberty targeted John Malcolm, a loyalist colonist, covering him in tar and feathers. For five hours, they paraded him through the streets as a form of public humiliation. Similar acts of destruction and violence
The British authorities reacted with severity. In May 1774, General Thomas Gage arrived in Boston as the new military governor and instituted the “Coercive Acts,” which included closing Boston’s port and dissolving local government.
The Consequences of Surveillance
By early 1775, Boston was under siege, with about 5,000 British troops patrolling the streets, tasked with gathering intelligence on the Sons of Liberty and detaining leading dissidents.
Gage believed that increased surveillance would suppress unrest. Instead, it drove more citizens toward the radical factions. On the night of April 18, 1775, a discreet network of watchmen managed to evade British scrutiny to hang two lanterns from Christ Church steeple. This act signaled that Gage’s troops were about to cross the river to seize colonial munitions, igniting the spark of the American Revolution.
In light of the substantial backlash against ALPRs, Flock Safety CEO Garett Langley has turned to history for guidance. In June 2026, he published an article on the company’s website, arguing that critics misinterpret Ben Franklin’s famed assertion, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
In an August 2026 interview, Langley referred to the auto industry, suggesting that instead of banning cars in response to rising accident rates, lawmakers opted for safety measures like seat belts and airbags. Drawing parallels with the current ALPR debate, he expressed hope that Americans would reach a “compromise” on privacy issues.
Samuel Adams, a key figure among the Sons of Liberty, held a different view on compromise. In a letter from June 1771, he indicated that although Americans were “divided on how to oppose arbitrary measures,” they were “united in the fundamental principles of constitutional and natural liberty.”
Adams believed that when faced with threats, American colonists would rally together to defend their freedoms. This sentiment seems to resonate in today’s context.
