4 ms·

Also mentions the "Shot Spotter" technology, which has some controversy associated with it: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/four-problems-with-the

by tyingq 5y ago

Also mentions the "Shot Spotter" technology, which has some controversy associated with it: https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/four-problems-with-the-shotspotter-gunshot-detection-system/ https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/four-problems-w...

coolso 5y ago
I wish that article focused solely on whether or not the technology actually works, rather than leaning heavily on the “problematic” aspect that forces people to maybe face facts that run counter to their dishonest or at least misleading narratives.
- tyingq 5y ago
  It's the ACLU, so their focus seems unsurprising. The company was already caught falsifying data, so it's not made up concerns. https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-shotspotter-to-alter-evidence-from-gunshot-detecting-ai https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-sh...
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    That article is mentioned in the ACLU piece, as Shot Spotter is trying a $300 million defamation suit over it. They claim they always do a secondary "detailed forensic report" and their communication with police about that is inconsequential.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  It’s reasonable to define some high level goals when determining whether a technology like this “works.”
steve76 5y ago
[dead]
z3c0 5y ago
I'd really like to know how this technology differentiates a gunshot from a car backfiring.
- nanomonkey 5y ago
  From my understanding, looking into making an open source version years ago, a human will actually listen to the audio clip and verify, plus there is some triangulation going on where they can determine the speed of the bullet and direction for at least high powered bullets using multiple microphones.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  It's easy in a lab, in a city with potential for fairly arbitrary reverberations hitting the microphone at fairly arbitrary timings it's right up there with forensic fire analysis and other crap like that.
- sokoloff 5y ago
  I’d guess a backfire (or afterfire) is significantly subsonic and therefore probably has a different (less sharp) profile than gunshot report of typical ammunition.
  - darksaints 5y ago
    .45 ACP, which is probably the second most common pistol round, is subsonic by default.
    - CydeWeys 5y ago
      It's definitely not the second-most common pistol round, especially in crime. It's way below .22LR and 9mm. Might even be below .380 ACP, .38 Special, and .25 ACP too. The guns used in crime are quite different than the guns preferred by the enthusiast community -- they're generally older, smaller, and cheaper.
      - darksaints 5y ago
w0mbat 5y ago
A UK research company developed this kind of microphone array tech in the 90s. It first came to fame in the Bosnian war and was used by UK peacekeeper troops to enforce ceasefires. In that case it was most useful for detecting artillery fire and could instantly say what kind of weapon was fired, where it was, and when it fired. This could be used to instantly work out who broke the ceasefire, and peacekeepers could even fire back to destroy the rogue artillery piece and restore order.

by tyingq 5y ago

coolso 5y ago

I wish that article focused solely on whether or not the technology actually works, rather than leaning heavily on the “problematic” aspect that forces people to maybe face facts that run counter to their dishonest or at least misleading narratives.

tyingq 5y ago
It's the ACLU, so their focus seems unsurprising. The company was already caught falsifying data, so it's not made up concerns. https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-shotspotter-to-alter-evidence-from-gunshot-detecting-ai https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-sh...
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  That article is mentioned in the ACLU piece, as Shot Spotter is trying a $300 million defamation suit over it. They claim they always do a secondary "detailed forensic report" and their communication with police about that is inconsequential.
tshaddox 5y ago
It’s reasonable to define some high level goals when determining whether a technology like this “works.”

steve76 5y ago

[dead]

z3c0 5y ago

I'd really like to know how this technology differentiates a gunshot from a car backfiring.

nanomonkey 5y ago
From my understanding, looking into making an open source version years ago, a human will actually listen to the audio clip and verify, plus there is some triangulation going on where they can determine the speed of the bullet and direction for at least high powered bullets using multiple microphones.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
It's easy in a lab, in a city with potential for fairly arbitrary reverberations hitting the microphone at fairly arbitrary timings it's right up there with forensic fire analysis and other crap like that.
sokoloff 5y ago
I’d guess a backfire (or afterfire) is significantly subsonic and therefore probably has a different (less sharp) profile than gunshot report of typical ammunition.
- darksaints 5y ago
  .45 ACP, which is probably the second most common pistol round, is subsonic by default.
  - CydeWeys 5y ago
    It's definitely not the second-most common pistol round, especially in crime. It's way below .22LR and 9mm. Might even be below .380 ACP, .38 Special, and .25 ACP too. The guns used in crime are quite different than the guns preferred by the enthusiast community -- they're generally older, smaller, and cheaper.
    - darksaints 5y ago

w0mbat 5y ago

A UK research company developed this kind of microphone array tech in the 90s. It first came to fame in the Bosnian war and was used by UK peacekeeper troops to enforce ceasefires. In that case it was most useful for detecting artillery fire and could instantly say what kind of weapon was fired, where it was, and when it fired. This could be used to instantly work out who broke the ceasefire, and peacekeepers could even fire back to destroy the rogue artillery piece and restore order.