3 ms·

From the article: > Conversations recorded by ShotSpotter sensors have twice been introduced as evidence in criminal trials. In one case the court allowed it,

From the article: > Conversations recorded by ShotSpotter sensors have twice been introduced as evidence in criminal trials. In one case the court allowed it, in another the court did not. The possibility clearly exists, and depending on interpretation of state law, it may be permissible for ShotSpotter to record conversations on the street for future use as evidence.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
fasthands9 3y ago
Fair enough. My previous statement was incorrect. Edited above. I understand the hypothetical case they could be misused but I'm still not aware of any cases they actually were. >On June 8, 2007, the Shotspotter acoustic gunshot detection and location system recorded two gunshots from the corner of 83rd Avenue and Birch Street in Oakland, California. The first one, at 11:10:22 p.m., was at 8236 Birch Street, and the second one, 24 seconds later at 11:10:46 p.m., was at 1775 83rd Avenue. Those addresses are less than 10 feet apart. 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." I am happy shotspotter helped in the prosecution of this person who needlessly killed someone. I realize there could be ways to abuse this for things having nothing to do with gun violence, but you could also say DUI traffic stops or DNA collection could be misued. That doesn't mean they are misused.
- kortilla 3y ago
  But that’s not how shotspotter is supposed to work. It’s supposed to detect gunshots, not be used for evidence of voice recordings. If that was the point they could just put microphones recording everyone and play them back whenever there was a crime.
  - modriano 3y ago
    The voice recordings were only picked up because they were incident to shootings. Without the shooting, the audio wouldn't have been written out to file or ever be heard by anyone.
    - soraminazuki 3y ago
      Says who? The people behind these invasive systems who push back hard on the slightest attempt at basic accountability?
      - TlrSwftFrPres 3y ago
        You know who else pushes back at accountability? Criminals. The more data the good guys collect, the safer they can keep us from bad guys.
        soraminazuki 3y ago
        The word you’re looking for is “tyrant.” In other words, people with unrestricted authority to beat, kill, rob, spy, or do whatever they want with us. And tyrants don’t keep us safe. “Good guys,” on the other hand, respect the rule of law. It shouldn’t refer to people shielded from legal liability who spouts the “tough on crime” rhetoric to excuse themselves from their own criminal behavior.
      - wolrah 3y ago
        > Says who? The people behind these invasive systems who push back hard on the slightest attempt at basic accountability? 100% this, IMO any of these law enforcement vendors like ShotSpotter, Harris (stingray), Taser/Axon, etc. which insist on keeping any and all details secret deserve zero trust. Anything they say without actual data analyzed by an independent third party is worth less than what I scooped out of my cats' box this morning. The public conversation relies on public data, so if your company doesn't want the public to have the data then your company and its clients should not be given any benefit of the doubt by the public.
      - modriano 3y ago
modriano 3y ago
Yeah, but the only reason anyone listened to those sections (or was even able to listen to these sections) of tape was because they contained shootings. These systems work on a rolling buffer storage system; they're constantly recording to a buffer that contains the last N minutes of audio and if a triggering event occurs, it gets written out to a file that is reviewed by a person and if it contains a gunshot, that person confirms there was a gunshot (ie that it wasn't a firework or something) and a notification goes out to the relevant police district/precinct/whatever for that area. If there's just people talking but no gunshots, the buffer never writes out and it's overwritten before too long.
bandrami 3y ago
Do I have an expectation of privacy in a conversation I have in public?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

fasthands9 3y ago

Fair enough. My previous statement was incorrect. Edited above. I understand the hypothetical case they could be misused but I'm still not aware of any cases they actually were. >On June 8, 2007, the Shotspotter acoustic gunshot detection and location system recorded two gunshots from the corner of 83rd Avenue and Birch Street in Oakland, California. The first one, at 11:10:22 p.m., was at 8236 Birch Street, and the second one, 24 seconds later at 11:10:46 p.m., was at 1775 83rd Avenue. Those addresses are less than 10 feet apart. 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." I am happy shotspotter helped in the prosecution of this person who needlessly killed someone. I realize there could be ways to abuse this for things having nothing to do with gun violence, but you could also say DUI traffic stops or DNA collection could be misued. That doesn't mean they are misused.

kortilla 3y ago
But that’s not how shotspotter is supposed to work. It’s supposed to detect gunshots, not be used for evidence of voice recordings. If that was the point they could just put microphones recording everyone and play them back whenever there was a crime.
- modriano 3y ago
  The voice recordings were only picked up because they were incident to shootings. Without the shooting, the audio wouldn't have been written out to file or ever be heard by anyone.
  - soraminazuki 3y ago
    Says who? The people behind these invasive systems who push back hard on the slightest attempt at basic accountability?
    - TlrSwftFrPres 3y ago
      You know who else pushes back at accountability? Criminals. The more data the good guys collect, the safer they can keep us from bad guys.
      - soraminazuki 3y ago
        The word you’re looking for is “tyrant.” In other words, people with unrestricted authority to beat, kill, rob, spy, or do whatever they want with us. And tyrants don’t keep us safe. “Good guys,” on the other hand, respect the rule of law. It shouldn’t refer to people shielded from legal liability who spouts the “tough on crime” rhetoric to excuse themselves from their own criminal behavior.
    - wolrah 3y ago
      > Says who? The people behind these invasive systems who push back hard on the slightest attempt at basic accountability? 100% this, IMO any of these law enforcement vendors like ShotSpotter, Harris (stingray), Taser/Axon, etc. which insist on keeping any and all details secret deserve zero trust. Anything they say without actual data analyzed by an independent third party is worth less than what I scooped out of my cats' box this morning. The public conversation relies on public data, so if your company doesn't want the public to have the data then your company and its clients should not be given any benefit of the doubt by the public.
    - modriano 3y ago

modriano 3y ago

Yeah, but the only reason anyone listened to those sections (or was even able to listen to these sections) of tape was because they contained shootings. These systems work on a rolling buffer storage system; they're constantly recording to a buffer that contains the last N minutes of audio and if a triggering event occurs, it gets written out to a file that is reviewed by a person and if it contains a gunshot, that person confirms there was a gunshot (ie that it wasn't a firework or something) and a notification goes out to the relevant police district/precinct/whatever for that area. If there's just people talking but no gunshots, the buffer never writes out and it's overwritten before too long.

bandrami 3y ago

Do I have an expectation of privacy in a conversation I have in public?