6 ms·

There are multiple conversations from shot spotter admitted into court. New Bedford, Connecticut and Oakland had court cases off the top of my head, but a much

by Retric 3y ago

There are multiple conversations from shot spotter admitted into court. New Bedford, Connecticut and Oakland had court cases off the top of my head, but a much wider range of conversation ends up being listened to by police and parallel construction is a thing. Further, the concern is unequal policing biases statistics resulting in more uneven policing. A grid of microphones covering a full city is unbiased, placement based on past data isn't. Drug crime is known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes, arrests are extremely biased.

jjallen 3y ago
Isn’t this whole article about shooting though and not drug crime? How would you hear drug crime? Are shooting crimes known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes?
- Retric 3y ago
  ShotSpotter is recording conversations inside peoples homes and on the street. You can definitionally hear someone making a drug deal or talking about the joint their smoking etc. I'm reasonably concerned that once recordings exist getting access to them is much easier, especially as police have already heard many conversations taken from these recordings.
  - wl 3y ago
    Can you point to an example of a ShotSpotter sensor recording a conversation inside somebody's home? That seems unlikely given that these sensors are installed outdoors.
    - loteck 3y ago
      They are installed outdoors, sometimes on top of people's homes. https://twitter.com/loteck/status/1760859493133697237?t=AQTPpLbJqE2miKlCnXwJgA&s=19 https://twitter.com/loteck/status/1760859493133697237?t=AQTP...
verteu 3y ago
No, in New Bedford, the "conversation" was not admitted into court [1]. Oakland is the "one" case I mentioned [2]. Do you have a source for the Connecticut case? [1] "New Bedford utilized ShotSpotter, and the following was recorded by the gunfire detection system: “‘Oh my God! You're crazy!’ and then ‘Jason don‘t!’ several times, followed by a number of gunshots. After the gunshots, a female was heard yelling ‘You . . . missed and they shot him!’ ‘You're going to jail!”’. A motion to suppress this evidence was granted in Denison’s case, as the judge ruled that the ShotSpotter recording violated the Massachusetts Wiretap Act" https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3920&context=faculty_pub https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... [2] https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-5116 https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-5116
- Retric 3y ago
  That's what I get from faulty memory. However, evidence is still being used even when it's not directly brought up in court. "In the 2015 Massachusetts case, the court refused to allow the introduction of ShotSpotter audio after the defendant argued the audio was captured and obtained in violation of that state’s wiretap laws. Police in that case requested and received an extended audio clip from the company that captured people discussing the shooting, including one calling out the defendant’s name." In theory any evidence from those audio recordings is tainted and no longer admissible, therefore police should want to avoid listing to any of it. But... by not bringing it up in court police can use parallel construction to get around those issues.
  - verteu 3y ago
    edit: Good point, I agree that parallel construction is an important concern, especially since there's so little transparency in police investigations. One possible solution is to force them to limit the duration recorded to only a few seconds. (I previously thought that's how ShotSpotter worked. Turns out they've kept days of audio before, apparently for "debugging purposes.") > Drug crime is known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes, arrests are extremely biased. Keep in mind that the reverse is true for gun crime, where low-income minority communities suffer from the lowest clearance rates.

by Retric 3y ago

jjallen 3y ago

Isn’t this whole article about shooting though and not drug crime? How would you hear drug crime? Are shooting crimes known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes?

Retric 3y ago
ShotSpotter is recording conversations inside peoples homes and on the street. You can definitionally hear someone making a drug deal or talking about the joint their smoking etc. I'm reasonably concerned that once recordings exist getting access to them is much easier, especially as police have already heard many conversations taken from these recordings.
- wl 3y ago
  Can you point to an example of a ShotSpotter sensor recording a conversation inside somebody's home? That seems unlikely given that these sensors are installed outdoors.
  - loteck 3y ago
    They are installed outdoors, sometimes on top of people's homes. https://twitter.com/loteck/status/1760859493133697237?t=AQTPpLbJqE2miKlCnXwJgA&s=19 https://twitter.com/loteck/status/1760859493133697237?t=AQTP...

verteu 3y ago

No, in New Bedford, the "conversation" was not admitted into court [1]. Oakland is the "one" case I mentioned [2]. Do you have a source for the Connecticut case? [1] "New Bedford utilized ShotSpotter, and the following was recorded by the gunfire detection system: “‘Oh my God! You're crazy!’ and then ‘Jason don‘t!’ several times, followed by a number of gunshots. After the gunshots, a female was heard yelling ‘You . . . missed and they shot him!’ ‘You're going to jail!”’. A motion to suppress this evidence was granted in Denison’s case, as the judge ruled that the ShotSpotter recording violated the Massachusetts Wiretap Act" https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3920&context=faculty_pub https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=... [2] https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-5116 https://casetext.com/case/people-v-johnson-5116

Retric 3y ago
That's what I get from faulty memory. However, evidence is still being used even when it's not directly brought up in court. "In the 2015 Massachusetts case, the court refused to allow the introduction of ShotSpotter audio after the defendant argued the audio was captured and obtained in violation of that state’s wiretap laws. Police in that case requested and received an extended audio clip from the company that captured people discussing the shooting, including one calling out the defendant’s name." In theory any evidence from those audio recordings is tainted and no longer admissible, therefore police should want to avoid listing to any of it. But... by not bringing it up in court police can use parallel construction to get around those issues.
- verteu 3y ago
  edit: Good point, I agree that parallel construction is an important concern, especially since there's so little transparency in police investigations. One possible solution is to force them to limit the duration recorded to only a few seconds. (I previously thought that's how ShotSpotter worked. Turns out they've kept days of audio before, apparently for "debugging purposes.") > Drug crime is known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes, arrests are extremely biased. Keep in mind that the reverse is true for gun crime, where low-income minority communities suffer from the lowest clearance rates.