4 ms·
> And not a chance I could do that based on microphone playback between firework and gunshot. I’m happy to agree with you on that point, since I don’t have th
by bluejekyll 5y ago
> And not a chance I could do that based on microphone playback between firework and gunshot.
I’m happy to agree with you on that point, since I don’t have the experience there.
My larger point is that I could reasonably say allow for shotspotter to review the sound, but the location I’m assuming is pretty darn accurate.
And yes, the article completely destroys their credibility as a reliable source of evidence.
- jcims 5y agoMultipath effects, which for sound are huge in an environment with large flat surfaces, could create phantom origin spots at the fringes of the covered area.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y agoSo if your point is it’s too complex and variable for automatic processing; how does adding a human arbitrarily changing classification and location going to improve accuracy? Unless it’s the shotspotter tech put there shooting people, seems the company is very successful bullshit either technically or ethically.
- jcims 5y agoIf there was solid external evidence of when a shooting occurred (eg gps timestamped video of the event) I could see them doing it purely for calibration purposes. Clearly those adjustments should not be admitted as evidence in a court case. ShotSpotter just needs to take the 'L' and they will have to prosecute without (or admit whatever was originally recorded as corroborating evidence).
- Clubber 5y ago>but the location I’m assuming is pretty darn accurate. I remember reading about a similar technology used by soldiers in Afghanistan to find snipers, but Afghanistan is largely an open area. I don't see how it would be accurate when the acoustics of multiple buildings are in effect.