3 ms·
I had no idea ShotSpotter was recording conversations, always assumed the nature of analyzing for a sound signature would be throwing much of the data away imme
by petee 3y ago
I had no idea ShotSpotter was recording conversations, always assumed the nature of analyzing for a sound signature would be throwing much of the data away immediately
- wahnfrieden 3y agoThat’s because it’s generalized surveillance tech marketed to the public as personal safety tech (which it is not per the data)
- verteu 3y ago> assumed the nature of analyzing for a sound signature would be throwing much of the data away immediately (INACCURATE, SEE EDIT) It does. The "conversations recorded by ShotSpotter sensors" were a few seconds before/after the shooting, and consisted of people saying things like "[shooter's name] Why are you going to [shoot] me like that, [shooter's name]"? [1] [1] 'The recording of the second shot also captured the voice of Tyrone Lyles, apparently addressing the person who shot him: "Ar, Ar, why are you going to do me like that, Ar."' https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-5116 https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-5116 edit: I was wrong. Apparently "the detectors keep hours or days of continuous audio": https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/shotspotter-ceo-answers-questions-gunshot https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/shotspotter-ceo...
- hcfman 3y agoWell, yeah... that's what an acoustic sensor is. It would get more objection if they called them microphones.