6 ms·

ShotSpotter Keeps Listening After Contracts Expire

29 points by danso 2y ago

thiago_fm 2y ago
Reading this news where there are real gun control and seeing a kid died because of this feels like America happens in a different dimension. Even worse, a company exists to place sensors around a city to monitor gunshots. Observability platform for gunshots. I'd say... the issue isn't with ShotSpotter, but the fact that the average citizen can carry guns. I remember how, as a tourist, I just needed to sign a paper and pay some bucks to shoot with a gun.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- voxic11 2y ago
  In most countries in Europe you don't need any special license as a tourist to shoot guns at a range.
- ben_cog 2y ago
  That's hardly the problem. There are millions of people who legally carry concealed firearms in the USA without an issue daily. The "gun" violence is not committed by those people; in fact they are something like 10x more likely to use their gun defensively than to intentionally commit crimes.
  - drewbug01 2y ago
    “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is the canonical form of this argument. And it’s utterly irrelevant. Sure, most people with a gun don’t kill anyone. But the fact is, some people will. Prohibiting access is by far the best means of preventing those tragedies before they happen. High price to pay? Sure. But saving lives is worth it.
    - ben_cog 2y ago
      Guns do save lives when carried by responsible, law-abiding individuals (and almost all are). Lawfully owned and carried firearms are used defensively something like 10x more than in the commission of crimes. From the CDC: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." > Prohibiting access is by far the best means of preventing those tragedies before they happen. Sure, just like providing food to starving people is the best way of helping them. Unfortunately, things are rarely so simple and black-and-white, right?
      - drewbug01 2y ago
        > Lawfully owned and carried firearms are used defensively something like 10x more than in the commission of crimes. That's citing the maximum of the CDC estimate; the low end of that same estimate paints a more sobering picture. If you take the lower end of the estimate, another way of saying it would be "nearly 40% of the interactions involving this product are used illegally." We strongly regulate things that have a much smaller chance of causing harm than firearms. > Sure, just like providing food to starving people is the best way of helping them. Unfortunately, things are rarely so simple and black-and-white, right? Your argument here is, what - it's not "so simple and black-and-white" to provide food to the hungry? I happen to think it is that simple, and black-and-white: there is no good reason that anyone on this planet goes hungry. We have more than enough resources to go around. I find any suggestion to the contrary to be deeply morally abhorrent.
        ben_cog 2y ago
        > If you take the lower end of the estimate, another way of saying it would be "nearly 40% of the interactions involving this product are used illegally." We strongly regulate things that have a much smaller chance of causing harm than firearms. I wouldn't take the lower end of the estimate, because most defensive firearms uses are not reported. Firearms are also already highly regulated, yet a number of illicit use still occurs. By your logic, we need fewer firearms regulations to tip the balance. I don't understand what you are proposing that hasn't already been tried, done, or is completely impractical. Banning things, especially an empowering technology, has never worked. It is better to decentralize and distribute that power - in this case, it is a political power - fairly and equally among all people.
  - LorenPechtel 2y ago
    Yup. CCW permit holders are considerably less likely to be convicted of felonies than the average person--and a good portion of the crimes they "commit" are improper carry. Either letting it show or carrying where they weren't supposed to (which isn't always obvious. Some states you can't carry in any business that sells alcohol--but when alcohol is a small part of their product line you might not know.) Fundamentally, if you made it to 21 without messing up badly enough to be denied CCW you're probably not going to be a bad guy later.
- mindslight 2y ago
  The "different dimension" is the mentality and unaccountability of the police themselves, not that the average citizen is able to carry a gun. ShotSpotter is like crack to police, as it gives them an escalation pretext of "shots fired" before they even show up to a scene.
01100011 2y ago
ShotSpotter seems like a good idea. Why am I supposed to be hating on them? I guess I'm out of the loop.
- helpfulContrib 2y ago
  [dead]
- mdorazio 2y ago
  Because it doesn't actually work as advertised, leading to things like over-policing and poorer response times to actual crime [1]. [1] https://council.seattle.gov/2023/11/13/police-chiefs-critical-of-shotspotter-cities-pulling-out-of-contracts/ https://council.seattle.gov/2023/11/13/police-chiefs-critica...
- voxadam 2y ago
  It's ineffective. https://www.macarthurjustice.org/blog2/shotspotter-is-a-failure-whats-next/ https://www.macarthurjustice.org/blog2/shotspotter-is-a-fail... 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... https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/shotspotter-why-waste-money-we-dont-have-on-technology-that-doesnt-work/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/shotsp... https://www.axios.com/2022/04/07/campaign-zero-against-shotspotter-crime https://www.axios.com/2022/04/07/campaign-zero-against-shots...
- DDickson 2y ago
  These devices are typically installed in "high crime" areas. They then detect more crime (Or just loud noises). This calls police to respond to the area, and increased interaction with police commonly leads to increased confrontation with police leading to arrests. Thus re-enforcing the "high crime" reputation of the area.
  - david38 2y ago
    If they worked as advertised, it would be fine. You don’t just uniformly deploy such things. They’re not free. But like you said, if they just detect loud noise, that’s a problem.
tokai 2y ago
Scary that activists rather go after that company than the issue of police being incapable of responding without without shooting people. The company is crummy, but its not even close to being the actual problem. Guess its a low hanging fruit, compared to the police culture.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  Maybe we should start from somewhere and climb up top?
- danso 2y ago
  I'm not sure why going after "low hanging fruit" should be considered a bad strategy? If you can't build the resolve that leads to removing low hanging fruit in pursuit of the actual problem, how likely is it that your advocacy will ever fix the actual problem? In any case, I believe the anti-ShotSpotter advocates not only assert that SS is cost-ineffective, but that its alerts lead to increased escalation: > There was another study that found that the police, in areas where they know ShotSpotter alerts happen, tend to arrive more amped up and ready to jump out and engage. And in Chicago, this has had repercussions. Most recently, there was a case where a ShotSpotter alert went off, and it was unclear whether it was a gunshot or a firework. But the police arrived. They saw a man in his front yard, and they opened fire on him immediately. Fortunately, they didn’t hit him. And it turned out that it was just a firework. It was not a gunshot. The man did not have a gun. https://slate.com/business/2024/02/shotspotter-chicago-canceled-contract-racist-high-tech-policing-gun-violence.html https://slate.com/business/2024/02/shotspotter-chicago-cance...
  - Rychard 2y ago
    Here's a link to some footage of the event: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/video/cpd-officer-responding-to-shotspotter-opened-fire-on-teen-setting-off-fireworks-video-shows/ https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/video/cpd-officer-responding...
  - tokai 2y ago
    Because the actual problem is so much larger than shotspotter. The cops are gonna keep killing people and companies are gonna keep finding a way of facilitating this while making money. I don't think its wrong to combat the shotspotter, but looking from the outside in it's just such a bizarre situation that US cops will kill people no matter what. Its very much like trying to do things against swatting, except doing how its handled in the rest of the world by not killing random civilians just because a crime was phoned in.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
swordfish69 2y ago
So many formerly thriving American cities suffer because of insane murder rates and neverending gang violence. Journalists who study Shotspotter and other methods of stopping gang violence will almost never approach the problem with the intent of mitigating what amounts to a major public health emergency (if you can even call it that). Instead, they work to frustrate underfunded police departments and encourage police budget cuts as warfare rages on.
- no_exit 2y ago
  Chicago PD's budget is ~$2 billion officially, closer to $3 billion when considering accounting trickery. If they want more money, perhaps they should stop illegally brutalizing people? > The city paid out $639 million in police-related judgments and settlements between 2012 and the end of 2021, but only budgeted for $329 million in that span https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/11/03/whats-the-full-cost-of-the-chicago-police-department-cpd-budget-doesnt-give-the-whole-picture-former-city-analyst-says/ https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/11/03/whats-the-full-cos...
toomuchtodo 2y ago
Would there be any science value in acquiring this sensor network with a non profit entity if SoundThinking eventually winds down?
- jononor 2y ago
  Noise is a public health issue which can be studied using IoT sensor networks. So that is s potential application.
daft_pink 2y ago
Live near Chicago, just want to point out they recently discovered a murdered person quickly near where the report was. I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want the police to have another tool to reduce shootings on the southside. Reducing the number of shootings anywhere in the city is not a racist policy contrary to the articles assertion.
- butterandguns 2y ago
  I believe part of the argument is that it can lead to over policing. I’m in Cleveland where it’s been controversial because most of the devices have been deployed to predominantly black neighborhoods. So they get the most detections because that’s where the most sensors are because they were guided by police data on where the most gun violence historically has been located. Which leads to more police presence, more shakedowns, harassment of people in those neighborhoods. It can lead to a bad reinforcement loop.
  - theultdev 2y ago
    Devices are installed where shootings are frequently reported by civilians. The shootings are usually gang related, not at the police, so I don't see how your theory of heightened policing causes a loop. The best way to protect the innocent civilians in the area is to increase surveillance and police presence. Removing police presence is a disservice to the people who are victims of the gang violence in the area. Those people are the ones who call the police and want them there. Only if you remove the police in areas do you get a feedback loop (no protection, so you join a gang for protection, which leads to more gang violence)
    - jononor 2y ago
      Doesn't the police frequently bring in people for drug related things, even if the reason they were present was fun violence related?
      - theultdev 2y ago
pavel_lishin 2y ago
I feel like people confused about why ShotSpotter is so hated need to re-watch the original Robocop.

29 points by danso 2y ago

Reading this news where there are real gun control and seeing a kid died because of this feels like America happens in a different dimension. Even worse, a company exists to place sensors around a city to monitor gunshots. Observability platform for gunshots. I'd say... the issue isn't with ShotSpotter, but the fact that the average citizen can carry guns. I remember how, as a tourist, I just needed to sign a paper and pay some bucks to shoot with a gun.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
voxic11 2y ago
In most countries in Europe you don't need any special license as a tourist to shoot guns at a range.
ben_cog 2y ago
That's hardly the problem. There are millions of people who legally carry concealed firearms in the USA without an issue daily. The "gun" violence is not committed by those people; in fact they are something like 10x more likely to use their gun defensively than to intentionally commit crimes.
- drewbug01 2y ago
  “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” is the canonical form of this argument. And it’s utterly irrelevant. Sure, most people with a gun don’t kill anyone. But the fact is, some people will. Prohibiting access is by far the best means of preventing those tragedies before they happen. High price to pay? Sure. But saving lives is worth it.
  - ben_cog 2y ago
    Guns do save lives when carried by responsible, law-abiding individuals (and almost all are). Lawfully owned and carried firearms are used defensively something like 10x more than in the commission of crimes. From the CDC: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." > Prohibiting access is by far the best means of preventing those tragedies before they happen. Sure, just like providing food to starving people is the best way of helping them. Unfortunately, things are rarely so simple and black-and-white, right?
    - drewbug01 2y ago
      > Lawfully owned and carried firearms are used defensively something like 10x more than in the commission of crimes. That's citing the maximum of the CDC estimate; the low end of that same estimate paints a more sobering picture. If you take the lower end of the estimate, another way of saying it would be "nearly 40% of the interactions involving this product are used illegally." We strongly regulate things that have a much smaller chance of causing harm than firearms. > Sure, just like providing food to starving people is the best way of helping them. Unfortunately, things are rarely so simple and black-and-white, right? Your argument here is, what - it's not "so simple and black-and-white" to provide food to the hungry? I happen to think it is that simple, and black-and-white: there is no good reason that anyone on this planet goes hungry. We have more than enough resources to go around. I find any suggestion to the contrary to be deeply morally abhorrent.
      - ben_cog 2y ago
        > If you take the lower end of the estimate, another way of saying it would be "nearly 40% of the interactions involving this product are used illegally." We strongly regulate things that have a much smaller chance of causing harm than firearms. I wouldn't take the lower end of the estimate, because most defensive firearms uses are not reported. Firearms are also already highly regulated, yet a number of illicit use still occurs. By your logic, we need fewer firearms regulations to tip the balance. I don't understand what you are proposing that hasn't already been tried, done, or is completely impractical. Banning things, especially an empowering technology, has never worked. It is better to decentralize and distribute that power - in this case, it is a political power - fairly and equally among all people.
- LorenPechtel 2y ago
  Yup. CCW permit holders are considerably less likely to be convicted of felonies than the average person--and a good portion of the crimes they "commit" are improper carry. Either letting it show or carrying where they weren't supposed to (which isn't always obvious. Some states you can't carry in any business that sells alcohol--but when alcohol is a small part of their product line you might not know.) Fundamentally, if you made it to 21 without messing up badly enough to be denied CCW you're probably not going to be a bad guy later.
mindslight 2y ago
The "different dimension" is the mentality and unaccountability of the police themselves, not that the average citizen is able to carry a gun. ShotSpotter is like crack to police, as it gives them an escalation pretext of "shots fired" before they even show up to a scene.

01100011 2y ago

ShotSpotter seems like a good idea. Why am I supposed to be hating on them? I guess I'm out of the loop.

helpfulContrib 2y ago
[dead]
mdorazio 2y ago
Because it doesn't actually work as advertised, leading to things like over-policing and poorer response times to actual crime [1]. [1] https://council.seattle.gov/2023/11/13/police-chiefs-critical-of-shotspotter-cities-pulling-out-of-contracts/ https://council.seattle.gov/2023/11/13/police-chiefs-critica...
voxadam 2y ago
It's ineffective. https://www.macarthurjustice.org/blog2/shotspotter-is-a-failure-whats-next/ https://www.macarthurjustice.org/blog2/shotspotter-is-a-fail... 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... https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/shotspotter-why-waste-money-we-dont-have-on-technology-that-doesnt-work/ https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/shotsp... https://www.axios.com/2022/04/07/campaign-zero-against-shotspotter-crime https://www.axios.com/2022/04/07/campaign-zero-against-shots...
DDickson 2y ago
These devices are typically installed in "high crime" areas. They then detect more crime (Or just loud noises). This calls police to respond to the area, and increased interaction with police commonly leads to increased confrontation with police leading to arrests. Thus re-enforcing the "high crime" reputation of the area.
- david38 2y ago
  If they worked as advertised, it would be fine. You don’t just uniformly deploy such things. They’re not free. But like you said, if they just detect loud noise, that’s a problem.

tokai 2y ago

Scary that activists rather go after that company than the issue of police being incapable of responding without without shooting people. The company is crummy, but its not even close to being the actual problem. Guess its a low hanging fruit, compared to the police culture.

bayindirh 2y ago
Maybe we should start from somewhere and climb up top?
danso 2y ago
I'm not sure why going after "low hanging fruit" should be considered a bad strategy? If you can't build the resolve that leads to removing low hanging fruit in pursuit of the actual problem, how likely is it that your advocacy will ever fix the actual problem? In any case, I believe the anti-ShotSpotter advocates not only assert that SS is cost-ineffective, but that its alerts lead to increased escalation: > There was another study that found that the police, in areas where they know ShotSpotter alerts happen, tend to arrive more amped up and ready to jump out and engage. And in Chicago, this has had repercussions. Most recently, there was a case where a ShotSpotter alert went off, and it was unclear whether it was a gunshot or a firework. But the police arrived. They saw a man in his front yard, and they opened fire on him immediately. Fortunately, they didn’t hit him. And it turned out that it was just a firework. It was not a gunshot. The man did not have a gun. https://slate.com/business/2024/02/shotspotter-chicago-canceled-contract-racist-high-tech-policing-gun-violence.html https://slate.com/business/2024/02/shotspotter-chicago-cance...
- Rychard 2y ago
  Here's a link to some footage of the event: https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/video/cpd-officer-responding-to-shotspotter-opened-fire-on-teen-setting-off-fireworks-video-shows/ https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/video/cpd-officer-responding...
- tokai 2y ago
  Because the actual problem is so much larger than shotspotter. The cops are gonna keep killing people and companies are gonna keep finding a way of facilitating this while making money. I don't think its wrong to combat the shotspotter, but looking from the outside in it's just such a bizarre situation that US cops will kill people no matter what. Its very much like trying to do things against swatting, except doing how its handled in the rest of the world by not killing random civilians just because a crime was phoned in.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

swordfish69 2y ago

So many formerly thriving American cities suffer because of insane murder rates and neverending gang violence. Journalists who study Shotspotter and other methods of stopping gang violence will almost never approach the problem with the intent of mitigating what amounts to a major public health emergency (if you can even call it that). Instead, they work to frustrate underfunded police departments and encourage police budget cuts as warfare rages on.

no_exit 2y ago
Chicago PD's budget is ~$2 billion officially, closer to $3 billion when considering accounting trickery. If they want more money, perhaps they should stop illegally brutalizing people? > The city paid out $639 million in police-related judgments and settlements between 2012 and the end of 2021, but only budgeted for $329 million in that span https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/11/03/whats-the-full-cost-of-the-chicago-police-department-cpd-budget-doesnt-give-the-whole-picture-former-city-analyst-says/ https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/11/03/whats-the-full-cos...

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Would there be any science value in acquiring this sensor network with a non profit entity if SoundThinking eventually winds down?

jononor 2y ago
Noise is a public health issue which can be studied using IoT sensor networks. So that is s potential application.

daft_pink 2y ago

Live near Chicago, just want to point out they recently discovered a murdered person quickly near where the report was. I don’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want the police to have another tool to reduce shootings on the southside. Reducing the number of shootings anywhere in the city is not a racist policy contrary to the articles assertion.

butterandguns 2y ago
I believe part of the argument is that it can lead to over policing. I’m in Cleveland where it’s been controversial because most of the devices have been deployed to predominantly black neighborhoods. So they get the most detections because that’s where the most sensors are because they were guided by police data on where the most gun violence historically has been located. Which leads to more police presence, more shakedowns, harassment of people in those neighborhoods. It can lead to a bad reinforcement loop.
- theultdev 2y ago
  Devices are installed where shootings are frequently reported by civilians. The shootings are usually gang related, not at the police, so I don't see how your theory of heightened policing causes a loop. The best way to protect the innocent civilians in the area is to increase surveillance and police presence. Removing police presence is a disservice to the people who are victims of the gang violence in the area. Those people are the ones who call the police and want them there. Only if you remove the police in areas do you get a feedback loop (no protection, so you join a gang for protection, which leads to more gang violence)
  - jononor 2y ago
    Doesn't the police frequently bring in people for drug related things, even if the reason they were present was fun violence related?
    - theultdev 2y ago

pavel_lishin 2y ago

I feel like people confused about why ShotSpotter is so hated need to re-watch the original Robocop.