The Great Disconnect of the Activist Class
The short version: Gutfeld's panel frames Boston's gunshot-detection rejection as activist overreach, but skips the mountain of evidence that this tech often doesn't deliver what it promises.
Our Take
Credit to Breaking View USA for putting this fight on camera, but the framing here is the same tired script cable panels love: skeptics of surveillance tech are out-of-touch activists, and anyone who wants receipts before city hall signs another vendor contract is against public safety. That's not what happened in Boston. A city council asked hard questions about a system with a well-documented history of high false-positive rates, murky vendor claims, and unclear returns on the money spent — and got mocked for it on national TV.
This matters because the same playbook gets run every time a community pushes back on Flock Safety cameras, ALPR networks, or any other black-box public safety tool. Vendors and their boosters frame due diligence as "activist grandstanding" so nobody has to answer basic questions: does it work, who has access to the data, and what happens when it's wrong. Boston's council did its job. Demanding evidence isn't the disconnect — assuming tech equals safety without proof is.
If your city is being sold the same pitch, don't let a talking-points segment do your thinking for you. Check our camera map to see what's already watching your streets, and use our take-action resources to push your own council toward the scrutiny Boston just got ridiculed for providing.
This is DeFlock The USA’s original commentary. The video above is the work of Breaking View USA, published on YouTube — full credit to the creator.