4 ms·

Restrict its use to the original intention: detecting potential events police might want to immediately respond to. It (and any other gunfire locator) seems lik

Restrict its use to the original intention: detecting potential events police might want to immediately respond to. It (and any other gunfire locator) seems like it'd probably be an extremely useful and publicly beneficial technology even if it had a low true positive rate. The problem is allowing it to be used as evidence in criminal cases. That's the part that should be taken away.

tomschlick 5y ago
This exactly. I see Shotspotter and tech like facial recognition / license plate readers as the same. Its a lead, a clue for detectives to follow up on and validate / verify. It shouldn't be evidence on its own. Just a source that's slightly more reliable than a human witness.
- meowface 5y ago
  The arguments for facial recognition and license plate readers are much more complex. In the case of a gunfire detector, you're specifically looking for (supposed) activity that indicates the most serious possible crime might have occurred seconds ago. Facial recognition and license plate readers are used to automatically track individual humans wherever they go so that they can be quickly arrested if they're on a to-arrest list. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that, even if it's all taking place in public, open areas, but it's a totally different category from just knowing when and where a gun may have been fired. It's real-time crime detection vs. alleged criminal detection.
  - tomschlick 5y ago
    Thats very true. I also have reservations around facial recognition / ALPR systems if they are saving data of people who are not currently "flagged" related to a crime. I can see the usefulness to find stolen cars, or track down murder suspects but only after they are entered as a suspect. There shouldn't be a historical database of previous movements. There should also be states/federal guidelines around who can be entered.

tomschlick 5y ago

This exactly. I see Shotspotter and tech like facial recognition / license plate readers as the same. Its a lead, a clue for detectives to follow up on and validate / verify. It shouldn't be evidence on its own. Just a source that's slightly more reliable than a human witness.

meowface 5y ago
The arguments for facial recognition and license plate readers are much more complex. In the case of a gunfire detector, you're specifically looking for (supposed) activity that indicates the most serious possible crime might have occurred seconds ago. Facial recognition and license plate readers are used to automatically track individual humans wherever they go so that they can be quickly arrested if they're on a to-arrest list. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that, even if it's all taking place in public, open areas, but it's a totally different category from just knowing when and where a gun may have been fired. It's real-time crime detection vs. alleged criminal detection.
- tomschlick 5y ago
  Thats very true. I also have reservations around facial recognition / ALPR systems if they are saving data of people who are not currently "flagged" related to a crime. I can see the usefulness to find stolen cars, or track down murder suspects but only after they are entered as a suspect. There shouldn't be a historical database of previous movements. There should also be states/federal guidelines around who can be entered.