4 ms·

> Putting surveillance for gun crime in areas with the highest rates of gun crime is obviously what’s happening. This is in fact the crux of the problem. By si

> Putting surveillance for gun crime in areas with the highest rates of gun crime is obviously what’s happening. This is in fact the crux of the problem. By significantly increasing monitoring of areas with higher crime rates, you inadvertently create a vicious cycle feedback loop: The more you monitor an area, the more samples you get, biasing the stats (because your sampling is no longer uniform). Then these stats are used to justify more monitoring and policing in the area, further biasing your data.

thereisnospork 3y ago
The point is supposed to be that the monitoring and increased policing makes at least certain crimes impossible therefore improving the area for the rest of us. The farce is the utter failure of the 'survalience state' to actually catch and prosecute people.
- resolutebat 3y ago
  Perhaps in the US. Some surveillance states like Singapore and China are quite effective at catching criminals (thoughtcrime and otherwise).
Aurornis 3y ago
> The more you monitor an area, the more samples you get, biasing the stats So by monitoring an area with high crime rate, you catch more crime, which results in more policing for the area with a confirmed high crime rate? And that's a bad thing?
- ryandrake 3y ago
  By monitoring any area more, you find more crime, which results in that area being considered as "high crime" and in turn increasing monitoring--that's the cycle OP is talking about.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    That’s an oversimplification. First of all, unless you’re completely overwhelmed and not even bothering to enforce certain laws, you’re going to find out about most of the serious crime that takes place. Law enforcement is made aware of homicides either through missing persons reports or the discovery of dead bodies. Armed robberies and grand theft are usually reported if, for no other reason, than to create a paper trail for insurance claims. People who get shot or stabbed badly enough to end up in a hospital, end up in a hospital so there’s a reporting mechanism there. It’s not normal for most major crimes to happen completely outside of the attention of law enforcement unless things have gone very very wrong (which admittedly they have in many American cities). And much of the time, you can infer where these crimes happened. The benefit of increasing patrols and surveillance in a specific area is more about gathering evidence to solve crimes, and less about discovering those crimes to begin with. In some cases you might end up discovering more crime (especially when gangs are involved and people are intimidated into not reporting crimes) but if you monitor areas where any serious crime would already get reported in the first place, you won’t actually find more serious crime there.
  - misja111 3y ago
    The devices monitor specifically for gunshots. I find it hard to believe that gunshots in wealthy area's often go undetected, with or without those devices.
- scheme271 3y ago
  It's biasing the sample. For example, drug usage among teens are roughly the same between white, hispanic and african americans but african americans are more likely to be arrested and charged for drug possession or usage. Here the difference is probably because african americans are stopped and searched more even though their usage is about the same as whites.
  - pillusmany 3y ago
    Are the rates of drug dealing the same through?
    - jakelazaroff 3y ago
      Let me put it this way. The biggest drug epidemic of this century was the opioid crisis. Half a million Americans died. The primary people responsible are white billionaires, and we know exactly who they are — yet they were never even arrested.
      - boxed 3y ago
        The difference being that they convinced doctors to hand this stuff out like candy. It was all legal. Which is why it got that bad in the first place.
        jakelazaroff 3y ago
        Right, which is why it’s asinine to talk about “crime rate” as though it weren’t wholly dependent on whom we as a society want to call criminals.
        boxed 3y ago
        "Asinine" is a bit much. There can be huge problems that aren't illegal, but that doesn't mean the crime rate is totally useless. You just have to treat it carefully, like any measurement.
      - 3y ago
- hobofan 3y ago
  Yes, in a country filled with badly trained police that open deadly fire upon hearing a firework[0] or an acorn dropping on a car hood, more police presence is a bad thing. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577403
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jevoten 3y ago
Putting aside how easy it is to compensate for this (e.g. report gunshots per area under surveillance), I'm curious how much crime estimates based on ShotSpotter or general policing differ from the frequency with which dead bodies are produced by an area. This latter measure mostly immune to overpolicing bias.
RussBrown00 3y ago
So this might be true for things like increased patrols for drug crimes as an example, but this doesn't apply to shootings. Shootings get reported no matter where they are. When someone shoots a gun in a wealthy part of town, it's not going unreported... Shot spotter simply allows for an instant report instead of having to wait for a phone call. Wealthy areas aren't getting away with more shootings just because of less patrols.
- kstenerud 3y ago
  As per the article, they're also using the microphones to record private conversations. > 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. Even in cases where they're not used at trial, they're still used to generate suspicion. I don't know if you've ever had cops on your ass, but it's super stressful, and can impact your job (because they start harassing you at work and you get fired). Depending on how much of a dick the cop is, he may just arrest you for shit and giggles, and now you have an arrest record that fucks up all sorts of things in your life (he's got qualified immunity so what does he care). This basically amounts to pervasive harassment of a community, and the more surveillance there is, the worse it gets, the less the locals will trust or cooperate with police, the more "us vs them" it gets between citizens and police, the more heavy-handed police response becomes, the less likely people are to solve their differences using the police, the more chaotic a community becomes. This is what oppression looks like.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

thereisnospork 3y ago

The point is supposed to be that the monitoring and increased policing makes at least certain crimes impossible therefore improving the area for the rest of us. The farce is the utter failure of the 'survalience state' to actually catch and prosecute people.

resolutebat 3y ago
Perhaps in the US. Some surveillance states like Singapore and China are quite effective at catching criminals (thoughtcrime and otherwise).

Aurornis 3y ago

> The more you monitor an area, the more samples you get, biasing the stats So by monitoring an area with high crime rate, you catch more crime, which results in more policing for the area with a confirmed high crime rate? And that's a bad thing?

ryandrake 3y ago
By monitoring any area more, you find more crime, which results in that area being considered as "high crime" and in turn increasing monitoring--that's the cycle OP is talking about.
- philwelch 3y ago
  That’s an oversimplification. First of all, unless you’re completely overwhelmed and not even bothering to enforce certain laws, you’re going to find out about most of the serious crime that takes place. Law enforcement is made aware of homicides either through missing persons reports or the discovery of dead bodies. Armed robberies and grand theft are usually reported if, for no other reason, than to create a paper trail for insurance claims. People who get shot or stabbed badly enough to end up in a hospital, end up in a hospital so there’s a reporting mechanism there. It’s not normal for most major crimes to happen completely outside of the attention of law enforcement unless things have gone very very wrong (which admittedly they have in many American cities). And much of the time, you can infer where these crimes happened. The benefit of increasing patrols and surveillance in a specific area is more about gathering evidence to solve crimes, and less about discovering those crimes to begin with. In some cases you might end up discovering more crime (especially when gangs are involved and people are intimidated into not reporting crimes) but if you monitor areas where any serious crime would already get reported in the first place, you won’t actually find more serious crime there.
- misja111 3y ago
  The devices monitor specifically for gunshots. I find it hard to believe that gunshots in wealthy area's often go undetected, with or without those devices.
scheme271 3y ago
It's biasing the sample. For example, drug usage among teens are roughly the same between white, hispanic and african americans but african americans are more likely to be arrested and charged for drug possession or usage. Here the difference is probably because african americans are stopped and searched more even though their usage is about the same as whites.
- pillusmany 3y ago
  Are the rates of drug dealing the same through?
  - jakelazaroff 3y ago
    Let me put it this way. The biggest drug epidemic of this century was the opioid crisis. Half a million Americans died. The primary people responsible are white billionaires, and we know exactly who they are — yet they were never even arrested.
    - boxed 3y ago
      The difference being that they convinced doctors to hand this stuff out like candy. It was all legal. Which is why it got that bad in the first place.
      - jakelazaroff 3y ago
        Right, which is why it’s asinine to talk about “crime rate” as though it weren’t wholly dependent on whom we as a society want to call criminals.
        boxed 3y ago
        "Asinine" is a bit much. There can be huge problems that aren't illegal, but that doesn't mean the crime rate is totally useless. You just have to treat it carefully, like any measurement.
    - 3y ago
hobofan 3y ago
Yes, in a country filled with badly trained police that open deadly fire upon hearing a firework[0] or an acorn dropping on a car hood, more police presence is a bad thing. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577403

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jevoten 3y ago

Putting aside how easy it is to compensate for this (e.g. report gunshots per area under surveillance), I'm curious how much crime estimates based on ShotSpotter or general policing differ from the frequency with which dead bodies are produced by an area. This latter measure mostly immune to overpolicing bias.

RussBrown00 3y ago

So this might be true for things like increased patrols for drug crimes as an example, but this doesn't apply to shootings. Shootings get reported no matter where they are. When someone shoots a gun in a wealthy part of town, it's not going unreported... Shot spotter simply allows for an instant report instead of having to wait for a phone call. Wealthy areas aren't getting away with more shootings just because of less patrols.

kstenerud 3y ago
As per the article, they're also using the microphones to record private conversations. > 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. Even in cases where they're not used at trial, they're still used to generate suspicion. I don't know if you've ever had cops on your ass, but it's super stressful, and can impact your job (because they start harassing you at work and you get fired). Depending on how much of a dick the cop is, he may just arrest you for shit and giggles, and now you have an arrest record that fucks up all sorts of things in your life (he's got qualified immunity so what does he care). This basically amounts to pervasive harassment of a community, and the more surveillance there is, the worse it gets, the less the locals will trust or cooperate with police, the more "us vs them" it gets between citizens and police, the more heavy-handed police response becomes, the less likely people are to solve their differences using the police, the more chaotic a community becomes. This is what oppression looks like.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]