> 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? Yes, thats pretty obvious

> 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? Yes, thats pretty obvious from reading the article. > The people tasked with analyzing the data are completely at fault here, not the technology which you are passionately claiming was at fault here. Actually, by permitting police the power to make edits and falsify shot-data, the technology is indeed at fault. Such data should be immutable. Such data should be sacrosanct. Any edits should never change the data, merely add a change-log with a full governance and audit logging. Without this, the tech is indeed at fault. It is unfit to meet the standard of prosecutorial evidence. > 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? What does this have to do with the subject at hand ?