4 ms·

> ShotSpotter’s claims about its accuracy have increased, from 80 percent accurate to 90 percent accurate to 97 percent accurate. According to Greene, those num

by toofy 5y ago

> ShotSpotter’s claims about its accuracy have increased, from 80 percent accurate to 90 percent accurate to 97 percent accurate. According to Greene, those numbers aren’t actually calculated by engineers, though. > “Our guarantee was put together by our sales and marketing department, not our engineers,” Greene told a San Francisco court in 2017. “We need to give them [customers] a number … We have to tell them something. … there’s the problem right there. a large number of us have seen, first hand, how a sales and marketing team will happily distort the abilities of something we build. and we’ve all seen first hand how clients will lap that up and then turn around and blame the engineers when it doesn’t live up to what they were led to believe. as his quote says, those numbers aren’t actually calculated by engineers, they’re calculated by the sales and marketing department and he happily pushes this nonsense because “… we have to tell them something.” meanwhile people are dying from this/being prosecuted and the accuracy rates are pulled out of thin air by the marketing/sales department.

at-fates-hands 5y ago
>> and then turn around and blame the engineers when it doesn’t live up to what they were led to believe. Any examples of how shotspotter technology has not lived up to or has failed in what it was designed to do? I'm not really that familiar with the technology, all I know is that if there are shots fired within the vicinity of a shotspotter it registers those shots. Does it have the capability of triangulating exactly where the shot took place? We have them all over Minneapolis and there's several twitter accounts that monitor police activity and I've seen a lot of posts saying: shotspotter was activated at 33rd and Hennepin, police located several bullet casings nearby and are actively searching for the shooter Stuff like that. What's the difference between having 80% and 97% accuracy?
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > Any examples of how shotspotter technology has not lived up to or has failed in what it was designed to do? You're literally quoting on an article where they moved the location of a sound by over a mile, and reclassified it from a firework to a gunshot. They tried to use this obviously falsified evidence to throw a man in jail, and had to withdraw the evidence once this was pointed out. Sure seems like an example of it not living up to what it was designed to do. Even if it turns out Williams is guilty and he did shoot that man, Shotspotter was just blatantly wrong about what happened and where it happened. Also, 86% of the time it detects a gunshot police find nothing. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/5/4/22417660/shotspotter-analysis-macarthur-justice-center-chicago-police-chicago-gun-violence-editorial https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/5/4/22417660/shotspotter-a... > We have them all over Minneapolis and there's several twitter accounts that monitor police activity and I've seen a lot of posts saying: Ooookay? This is practically the definition of how the plurality of anecdote is not data. > What's the difference between having 80% and 97% accuracy? When it's being used to send armed representatives of the state to arrest and prosecute people? The difference is a lot of people arrested and prosecuted based on faulty evidence.
  - sillysaurusx 5y ago
    This comment would be a lot better if it dropped the antagonism. They were just asking questions – questions I agreed with, for what it's worth. They didn't quote from the article.
    - masklinn 5y ago
      > They were just asking questions Yes they were JAQing off. > questions I agreed with, for what it's worth. You agreed with the question “what is the difference between 80% and 97%”?
      - parineum 5y ago
        Not op but I had that question. In my case the actual question is what is an accurate reading?
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        The good faith question isn’t “what’s the difference between 80% and 97%?” That’s a pointless question at best, a rhetorical trick excuse police and prosecutorial misconduct at worst. A better question would be along the lines of “how accurate would shot spotter have to be to justify both its use by police and courts, and the cost imposed on cities for its use?” Also “how much do we trust shotspotter’s assertion of their own accuracy?” is a good follow up too.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - at-fates-hands 5y ago
    >> u're literally quoting on an article where they moved the location of a sound by over a mile, and reclassified it from a firework to a gunshot. They tried to use this obviously falsified evidence to throw a man in jail, and had to withdraw the evidence once this was pointed out. Sure seems like an example of it not living up to what it was designed to do. You're saying people took the data the shotspotter gave them, falsified it in a court of law in order to get a man falsely jailed? Again, the technology did what it was supposed to do - notify when it detected a gun shot. The people tasked with analyzing the data are completely at fault here, not the technology which you are passionately claiming was at fault here. >> Also, 86% of the time it detects a gunshot police find nothing. Last month, for instance, a ShotSpotter detector directed officers to 82nd Street and Coles Avenue, where they found and rushed to the hospital Swaysee Rankin, a 15-year-old boy who had come to the aid of his 10-year-old friend when she was shot a block from the same location just six months earlier. If that was your 10 year old child, how much is the technology worth to parents whose child was saved from it working properly? Can you put a price on your child's worth? >> Ooookay? This is practically the definition of how the plurality of anecdote is not data. If you're going to take a shot at me, maybe at least get your quotes right? You may have heard the phrase the plural of anecdote is not data. It turns out that this is a misquote. The original aphorism, by the political scientist Ray Wolfinger, was just the opposite: The plural of anecdote is data. Wolfinger’s formulation makes sense: Data does not have a virgin birth. It comes to us from somewhere. Someone set up a procedure to collect and record it. Sometimes this person is a scientist, but she also could be a journalist. >> When it's being used to send armed representatives of the state to arrest and prosecute people? The difference is a lot of people arrested and prosecuted based on faulty evidence. Ahhh yes, the real money quote is this one. They're not cops or police, or law enforcement, they are "armed representatives of the state" to you? This terminology says all I need to know about you - enough said comrade.

by toofy 5y ago

at-fates-hands 5y ago

>> and then turn around and blame the engineers when it doesn’t live up to what they were led to believe. Any examples of how shotspotter technology has not lived up to or has failed in what it was designed to do? I'm not really that familiar with the technology, all I know is that if there are shots fired within the vicinity of a shotspotter it registers those shots. Does it have the capability of triangulating exactly where the shot took place? We have them all over Minneapolis and there's several twitter accounts that monitor police activity and I've seen a lot of posts saying: shotspotter was activated at 33rd and Hennepin, police located several bullet casings nearby and are actively searching for the shooter Stuff like that. What's the difference between having 80% and 97% accuracy?

ashtonkem 5y ago
> Any examples of how shotspotter technology has not lived up to or has failed in what it was designed to do? You're literally quoting on an article where they moved the location of a sound by over a mile, and reclassified it from a firework to a gunshot. They tried to use this obviously falsified evidence to throw a man in jail, and had to withdraw the evidence once this was pointed out. Sure seems like an example of it not living up to what it was designed to do. Even if it turns out Williams is guilty and he did shoot that man, Shotspotter was just blatantly wrong about what happened and where it happened. Also, 86% of the time it detects a gunshot police find nothing. https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/5/4/22417660/shotspotter-analysis-macarthur-justice-center-chicago-police-chicago-gun-violence-editorial https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/5/4/22417660/shotspotter-a... > We have them all over Minneapolis and there's several twitter accounts that monitor police activity and I've seen a lot of posts saying: Ooookay? This is practically the definition of how the plurality of anecdote is not data. > What's the difference between having 80% and 97% accuracy? When it's being used to send armed representatives of the state to arrest and prosecute people? The difference is a lot of people arrested and prosecuted based on faulty evidence.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  This comment would be a lot better if it dropped the antagonism. They were just asking questions – questions I agreed with, for what it's worth. They didn't quote from the article.
  - masklinn 5y ago
    > They were just asking questions Yes they were JAQing off. > questions I agreed with, for what it's worth. You agreed with the question “what is the difference between 80% and 97%”?
    - parineum 5y ago
      Not op but I had that question. In my case the actual question is what is an accurate reading?
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        The good faith question isn’t “what’s the difference between 80% and 97%?” That’s a pointless question at best, a rhetorical trick excuse police and prosecutorial misconduct at worst. A better question would be along the lines of “how accurate would shot spotter have to be to justify both its use by police and courts, and the cost imposed on cities for its use?” Also “how much do we trust shotspotter’s assertion of their own accuracy?” is a good follow up too.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- at-fates-hands 5y ago
  >> u're literally quoting on an article where they moved the location of a sound by over a mile, and reclassified it from a firework to a gunshot. They tried to use this obviously falsified evidence to throw a man in jail, and had to withdraw the evidence once this was pointed out. Sure seems like an example of it not living up to what it was designed to do. You're saying people took the data the shotspotter gave them, falsified it in a court of law in order to get a man falsely jailed? Again, the technology did what it was supposed to do - notify when it detected a gun shot. The people tasked with analyzing the data are completely at fault here, not the technology which you are passionately claiming was at fault here. >> Also, 86% of the time it detects a gunshot police find nothing. Last month, for instance, a ShotSpotter detector directed officers to 82nd Street and Coles Avenue, where they found and rushed to the hospital Swaysee Rankin, a 15-year-old boy who had come to the aid of his 10-year-old friend when she was shot a block from the same location just six months earlier. If that was your 10 year old child, how much is the technology worth to parents whose child was saved from it working properly? Can you put a price on your child's worth? >> Ooookay? This is practically the definition of how the plurality of anecdote is not data. If you're going to take a shot at me, maybe at least get your quotes right? You may have heard the phrase the plural of anecdote is not data. It turns out that this is a misquote. The original aphorism, by the political scientist Ray Wolfinger, was just the opposite: The plural of anecdote is data. Wolfinger’s formulation makes sense: Data does not have a virgin birth. It comes to us from somewhere. Someone set up a procedure to collect and record it. Sometimes this person is a scientist, but she also could be a journalist. >> When it's being used to send armed representatives of the state to arrest and prosecute people? The difference is a lot of people arrested and prosecuted based on faulty evidence. Ahhh yes, the real money quote is this one. They're not cops or police, or law enforcement, they are "armed representatives of the state" to you? This terminology says all I need to know about you - enough said comrade.