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

21–30 of 320 posts

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

#21

Post by oneoff786 »

pseudo0 wrote: post #8
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 trans…

There’s no way they have a legitimate secret sauce though… right? This doesn’t seem like a hard problem to do. Maybe some of this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_component_analys...

Plus basic triangulation logic synced across a bunch of microphones?

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

#22

Post by thereare5lights »

public_defender wrote: post #17
toomuchtodo wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They are being ordered to disclose and they are refusing to do it. The article says the lawyer requested to be held in "friendly contempt." I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist. It would probably be more accurate to say that the lawyer conceded the company was in contempt (i.e. they were refusing the order to produce and maybe even conceding it was legal) and was requesting a light sanction. The strategy seems rather b…

> The article says the lawyer requested to be held in "friendly contempt." I'm pretty sure that doesn't exist.

It's a thing

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.idc.law/resource/resmgr/quarterly_...

> This procedure is often called “friendly contempt,” a recognition that the contemnor has not acted “with contumacious disregard for the court’s authority,” but requires a contempt finding and sanction for the purpose of obtaining appellate review. See Klaine v. S. Ill. Hosp. Servs., 2016 IL 118217, ¶ 6; Zagorski v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 IL App (5th) 140056, ¶¶ 16-17. In many cases, the contemnor has even requested the finding and sanction for that purpose. See Ctr. Partners, Ltd. v. Growth Head GP, LLC, 2012 IL 113107, ¶ 20.

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

#23

Post by gorgoiler »

pseudo0 wrote: post #8
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 trans…

If your business is to help uphold the public rule of law it’s a stretch to want to keep that process a business secret.

You can’t make rulers while also trying to keep the definition of an inch secret.

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

#24

Post by pledess »

It's plausible that ShotSpotter's main motivation is that there isn't much benefit (e.g., increased sales) to complying with the defense's request, but the costs could be huge, both for collecting the requested information in the required manner, and for the ramifications if they cannot produce information that the court believed they should have been able to produce. Discovery can be extremely expensive even when the ultimate assessment of a company's technology is favorable (and thus there's no decrease in sales).

For background: https://iaals.du.edu/sites/default/files/documents/publicati...

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

#25

Post by bawolff »

irq-1 wrote: post #10

So when is the CEO going to jail for contempt? Or does that not apply to companies, only actual human beings?

Forgive me if im wrong, but i was under the impression that jailing someone for contempt was very rare and mostly only happened in extreme cases, of which this does not seem to be one.

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

#26

Post by abduhl »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #19
anewpersonality wrote: post #11

The US should mandate every gunshot be accompanied by a loud ultrasonic tone that can easily identify the occurrence to any recording device. The tone could eventually be modulated with the guns serial number.

Quoted post unavailable.

Of course it doesn’t concern them. They’re an ideologue.

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

#28

Post by monksy »

solardev wrote: post #5

(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 aro…

You're telling me that cities are picking minority areas to put these in just for ill intent?

Also, the devices don't "enforce crimes", they only alert approximate areas where a gunshot/firework may have gone off at.

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

#29

Post by HWR_14 »

pseudo0 wrote: post #8
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 trans…

I'm sensitive to the idea their methodology could be used to create a competing product, and think the court could get the experts to agree to event more stringent than normal NDAs to examine it. But I think if a computer system is going to be used to convict someone, experts effectively arguing against it's methodology is good. In fact, I think experts should have access to various machines that could convict someone.

I don't really care about a red light camera (as the image shows the license plate and the red light at the same time), but there are tons of other technical solutions that need to be examined.

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

#30

Post by EMIRELADERO »

Nextgrid wrote: post #7

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?

Pardon my ignorance, but couldn't the court just order the police to raid the company and forcefully retrieve the data?
Post reply on HN