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

Post by danuker » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 2:01 AM UTC

nickysielicki wrote: post #55

solardev wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno if this company deserves that benefit of the doubt. Honestly, given their history, they probably just don't want to reveal that their entire business is snake oil, basically existing solely to make money by enabling law enforcement to create crimes out of thin air. If their science was sound they wouldn't have to resort to such tactics...

Why are you so skeptical of their technology? Look how accurate raspberry pi powered ADSB plane tracking networks are — and that’s a much harder problem: they have no funding, they’re doing triangulation at the speed of light, and they’re doing it without GPS clock sources. You could also point to the lightning tracker networks that work in roughly the same way. Given a few million dollars to outfit their nodes with…

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 2:02 AM UTC

monksy wrote: post #28

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.

Post by beckingz » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 2:02 AM UTC

matt_heimer wrote: post #57

HWR_14 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's phenomenally hard. Echos, indirect routing (bouncing off buildings), sound waves changing speed as they go through various materials (like a lens). It's a very hard problem. Heck, a truly calibrated surround sound system requires using a microphone to measure the volume in place.

So can't you just do that? Install the system and then drive a calibration car that emits sounds and logs gps coordinates?

Post by tomrod » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

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…

Post by alasdair_ » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 2:03 AM UTC

nickysielicki wrote: post #33

I don’t understand the argument here. Suppose shotspotter is deeply flawed and often confuses fireworks and car backfires for gunshots, how could that have any impact on this case or the legality of it? I don’t see it as any different than if a police officer is out patrolling, hears a car backfire, and confuses it for a gunshot. If he then detains someone as a part of his investigation and discovers some other crime…