How the American revolt against Flock cameras mirrors the Boston Tea Party of 1773

A grassroots revolt against automated license plate readers, or ALPRs, has gained momentum across the United States.

ALPRs are AI-powered cameras that capture images of all passing vehicles. The camera systems turn details into datapoints searchable by anyone with access to the information.

Today, there are more than 130,000 ALPRs on U.S. streets. And more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies use cameras produced by a single manufacturer, Flock Safety, which says its cameras have helped law enforcement agencies identify and arrest criminals and reduce crime.

But some members of those police departments have abused the data gathered by ALPRs. A police officer in Kansas was sentenced to 18 months probabtion in April 2023 for using Flock camera to stalk his estranged wife. A Florida police officer was fired and arrested in March 2026 for using data gathered by ALPRs to stalk a woman he had previously harassed on a TV set. And activists filed a lawsuit against California police departments in October 2021 for illegally sharing information collected from ALPRs with out-of-state and federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Due to public outcry, cities across the U.S. have rejected and canceled contracts with Flock. In September 2026, Florida’s Department of Transportation revoked permits for ALPRs on its highway system.

That has not been enough to quell growing backlash over the cameras. In at least 36 states, opponents of the technology have taken matters into their own hands, destroying or impairing ALPRs rather than wait for local governments to step in.

As a historian of the American Revolution, I see parallels between Americans’ revolt against ALPRs and colonists’ destructive and often violent pushback to late 18th-century British rule.

If this summer’s celebrations marking the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding failed to inspire widespread patriotism, the increasingly bipartisan revolution against ALPRs suggests Americans have not entirely lost their rebellious spirit.

Troublesome colonists

From the start, the English colonists of North America proved to be a thorn in the side of the government. Despite British hopes that investing in American colonies would enrich England, these ventures proved to be more costly than they were profitable. Colonists bore much of the blame.

When the British Parliament passed laws meant to regulate trade in the 1660s, colonists across the Eastern Seaboard turned to smuggling rather than comply.

American merchants and consumers preferred to trade directly with both their fellow English colonists and merchants in the French and Dutch colonies rather than have that trade controlled by ministers in London.

The British government had little ability to enforce the law.

Britain pushes back

That changed in 1763, after British forces vanquished the French Empire from North America at tremendous cost. A new prime minister, George Grenville, led a series of reforms aimed at making the colonists pay for their own military protection.

Many Americans often believe that the Revolution began as a revolt against higher taxes. But most of the reforms coming from London actually lowered taxes to make smuggled goods less appealing.

What colonists really resented was the imperial government’s growing influence in their lives.

In 1767, Parliament passed a series of laws that allowed Britain to raise revenue to pay the salaries of colonial governors, attorneys general and judges. At the same time, Parliament sent troops to cities such as Boston to protect its officials. Competition for work and strained community relationships often led to violence between British soldiers and colonists.

American colonists turn to violence

The same year, angry colonists in Boston, New York and Philadelphia began boycotting British goods. Prominent Americans, including Benjamin Franklin and John Dickinson, endorsed these nonviolent protests.

But more radical leaders believed colonists needed to take more decisive action.

On the night of Dec. 16, 1773, members of the paramilitary group the Sons of Liberty dumped nearly £10,000 – almost US$2 million in today’s dollars – worth of privately owned tea into Boston Harbor.

A few weeks later, the Sons of Liberty struck again. This time they attacked fellow colonist and British supporter John Malcolm, covering him in tar and feathers. For five hours, they beat him and paraded him through the streets. Similar instances of destruction and violence occurred across the colonies.

The British responded harshly. In May 1774, Gen. Thomas Gage arrived at Boston as the colony’s new military governor. He implemented the so-called “Coercive Acts,” which closed the port of Boston and disbanded local government, among other measures.

Surveillance backfires

By early 1775, Boston was besieged. Around 5,000 British troops roamed the streets, directed by Gage to gather information on the Sons of Liberty and arrest leading dissidents.

Gage hoped heightened surveillance would quell unrest. But it only pushed more citizens into the radicals’ camp. On the night of April 18, 1775, a discrete network of watchmen eluded British surveillance and famously hanged two lanterns from the steeple atop Christ Church. These beacons signaled that Gage’s troops were crossing the Charles River, on their way to seize colonial stores of gunpowder and ammunition, setting in motion the events that would begin the American Revolution.

In response to the widespread pushback to ALPRs, Flock Safety CEO Garett Langley appealed to history. In June 2026 he authored a post on the company’s website, arguing that detractors misunderstand Ben Franklin’s famous 1755 quote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

In an August 2026 interview, Langley referenced the auto industry, noting that rather than ban cars after an uptick in collision fatalities, legislatures mandated seat belts and airbags. Drawing parallels to the contemporary debate around ALPRs, Langley suggested Americans should again prioritize safety and hoped Americans would be willing to “compromise” on issues of privacy.

Samuel Adams, one of the most prominent leaders of the Sons of Liberty, had his own opinion on compromise. Writing in June 1771, he explained that although Americans had “disagreed among themselves in one mode of opposition to arbitrary measures,” they were “united in the main principles of constitutional & natural liberty.”

Adams believed that, when threatened, American colonists would come together to defend their liberties. Clearly, Adams’ opinion resonates today.