Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ShotSpotter requests to be held in contempt rather than disclose its methodology

chicagoreader.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 320 posts

Re: ShotSpotter requests to be held in contempt rather than disclose its methodology

#2

Post by public_defender »

This is an audio surveillance company which sells itself to cities as a gunshot detection system. Based on how they appear to be acting in court, it would be reasonable to assume that either:

(1) Their methodology is about to be debunked, or;

(2) It's about to be revealed that they were working with police to allow them to manufacture reasons to arrest people.

Re: ShotSpotter requests to be held in contempt rather than disclose its methodology

#4

Post by toomuchtodo »

public_defender wrote: post #2

This is an audio surveillance company which sells itself to cities as a gunshot detection system. Based on how they appear to be acting in court, it would be reasonable to assume that either: (1) Their methodology is about to be debunked, or; (2) It's about to be revealed that they were working with police to allow them to manufacture reasons to arrest people.

What is the likely outcome of this? Can ShotSpotter be compelled to disclose?

Re: ShotSpotter requests to be held in contempt rather than disclose its methodology

#5

Post by solardev »

(Not the OP) For background, this is the company that supposedly locates gunshot sounds in cities (and sometimes battlefields) by microphone triangulation. It doesn't work all that well and is selectively deployed in minority areas and is used by police to selectively enforce crimes, sometimes also altering the evidence. Vice did a few articles on them and the company tried to sue but had it tossed out. Shady all around.

https://www.vice.com/en/topic/shotspotter

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/07/08/judge-tosses-defamation-...

Re: ShotSpotter requests to be held in contempt rather than disclose its methodology

#6

Post by stygiansonic »

cratermoon wrote: post #3

Another ADE 651? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651

Wow, thanks for the link. I had no idea about this.

    Promotional material issued by ATSC claimed that the ADE 651 could detect such item as guns, ammunition, drugs, truffles, human bodies, contraband ivory and bank notes at distances of up to 1 kilometre (0.62 mi), underground, through walls, underwater or even from aircraft at an altitude of up to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi).[12] In a promotional video, McCormick claimed that the device could detect elephants from 48 kilometres (30 mi) away.[13]

Re: ShotSpotter requests to be held in contempt rather than disclose its methodology

#7

Post by Nextgrid »

My understanding is that "contempt of court" is used to either punish someone's "bad" behavior or compel them to do something the court believes they are required to do.

In this case, wouldn't they just keep getting punished for contempt (racking up fines presumably) forever until they fulfil the court's request?

Re: ShotSpotter requests to be held in contempt rather than disclose its methodology

#8

Post by pseudo0 »

public_defender wrote: post #2

This is an audio surveillance company which sells itself to cities as a gunshot detection system. Based on how they appear to be acting in court, it would be reasonable to assume that either: (1) Their methodology is about to be debunked, or; (2) It's about to be revealed that they were working with police to allow them to manufacture reasons to arrest people.

Would results of discovery be public record? If so, I could also see:

3) They don't want their "secret sauce" made publicly available.

That would both open them up to commercial competition, and make their product less reliable in court, as anti-Shotspotter experts would start figuring out how to effectively argue against the product's methodology.

In general I think technology like this should have to be fully transparent if it is used as the basis for public entities' decisions, but so far the arguments against that practice seem to have won out. For example, good luck getting source code or design documents to contest an automated red light or speeding ticket.

Post reply on HN