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

211–220 of 320 posts

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

#211

Post by throwaway17_17 »

SicSemperUranus wrote: post #168
gitfan86 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine if there were 100 gun murders in a city in one year and you had a magic box that was 100% accurate at detection of location of gun shots within 1 mile and the city could only afford to buy 10 magic boxes. Would you put those magic boxes near where previous gun crimes have been committed or would you put those boxes in places based on the race and sexual orientation and disability status and gender of the peop…

To me this is obviously unethical, but wouldn't this also be obviously unconstitutional in the US? At least if done deliberately? 14th amendment and all that.

Assuming the question were to reach the Supreme Court, and not considering the possibilities in the various Circuits, there is a substantial chance all of the Supreme Court’s various composition over the last 50 years would uphold the use.

First consideration would be applicable legal standard, which practically always errs on the side of the State, second is the reasonableness of statistical methodology presenting the locations based on crime statistics.

I would not personally argue for its constitutionality, but given the precedents stemming from pretextual patrolling cases, it isn’t as clear cut as one might hope.

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

#213

Post by SilasX »

shadowgovt wrote: post #166
SilasX wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: what probability of finding a shooter is the “right” threshold to go in armed and expecting a shooter?

You'd have to ask London police, since they don't. So my Fermi estimate would be somewhere between US and UK rates.

>You'd have to ask London police, since they don't.

No, I wouldn't, because your facts are wrong. Yes, London police are generally unarmed, but they still get called to respond to situations where there is a likely armed suspect, and in those cases, they send in special units that are armed.

The question here -- that you avoided -- is, what is the appropriate probability before sending in such an officer, and is it higher than the 7% in the situation you cited? You were asking others to be outraged that there was "only" a 7% chance of an actual armed shooter. In an attempt to move the discussion forward, I asked what the appropriate value is, so as to appropriately judge whether such intervention was unwarranted.

To which your entire response was to shoehorn in an irrelevant factoid about London and falsely imply I'm not aware of it. (And, of course, work in a Fermi reference, because, why not?)

If I may make a suggestion: next time someone asks a substantive question, and you don't have a substantive answer, just don't reply. That's a much better approach for the forum than what you just did.

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

#214

Post by telchior »

hermitdev wrote: post #202
telchior wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming the "gunshot alerts" are actually gunshots, though. As noted, the sensors will identify other sounds as gunshots, and the company won't reveal its methodology so... do you live in a neighborhood with 50k gunshots, or 5k gunshots and 45k backfiring cars / fireworks / loud songs with gunshot sound effects?

I don't know about the accuracy of these sensors or the statistics cited, but having lived in and around Chicago for over 20 years, including 2 years on the south side, there are a lot of shootings. Summers are especially bad. Most weekends have double digit body counts. I don't know how many gun shots I've heard in Chicago over the years, but I can tell you how many cars back firing I've heard: zero. I've also heard…

Yeah, I know nothing about Chicago so I'm not challenging anyone's anecdotal experience. Just pointing out that ShotSpotter, as a source, is potentially pretty awful.

Another thing I didn't point out in my comment is that ShotSpotter also changes its data if police tell them to. Which seems like either an admission that their sensor is not very good, or that they're willing to compromise good data when told to.

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

#215

Post by remflight »

woodruffw wrote: post #192
remflight wrote: post #183

If they don’t reveal their methodology then how could this be used as evidence? Shouldn’t that lead to the entire case being thrown out if the police were alerted by this? Seems ridiculous to not allow the defense to see the methodology, even radar guns get that treatment.

> If they don’t reveal their methodology then how could this be used as evidence? It isn't used as evidence; it's used to manufacture pretext to justify collecting "real" evidence. SpotShotter is not an ignorant party: they understand that the service they sell to police departments is a pretextual laundromat for busting up whoever the police feel did the crime. That's the crux of this case: SpotShotter is being aske…

Isn’t that fruit of the poison tree though?

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

#216

Post by telchior »

daenz wrote: post #143
telchior wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming the "gunshot alerts" are actually gunshots, though. As noted, the sensors will identify other sounds as gunshots, and the company won't reveal its methodology so... do you live in a neighborhood with 50k gunshots, or 5k gunshots and 45k backfiring cars / fireworks / loud songs with gunshot sound effects?

I wouldn't want to live in a community with even 10% of the loud noises being gunshots, no. Saying that there's only 5k real gunshots doesn't make it sound any better. Maybe we should focus on why there's so many gunshots in these specific communities.

Sure, that sounds like a great thing to focus on, but in this particular thread that's specifically about ShotSpotter it mainly serves to change the subject.

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

#217

Post by pxmpxm »

shadowgovt wrote: post #165
pxmpxm wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is in those areas cops are always armed and expecting active shooters. Look up the gunplay stats for places like Back of The Yards in Chicago.

In that case, a technology encouraging them to go out expecting armed resistance when no crime has been committed is an obvious danger for the community.

If you think armed cops are the obvious danger in shotspotter neighborhoods, you've departed objective reality.

Eg https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2022/7/27/23280415/chicag...

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

#218

Post by throwaway17_17 »

SilasX wrote: post #158
subroutine wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cop that heard the backfire would likely be called to testify that fact in court. If they fail to show up, and the arresting officer (a different cop) claimed they made a probable-cause traffic stop based on what the other cop heard, and that cop refuses to testify, the prosecution is going to have a bad time.

A better analogy would be, if you asked the cop how he decides it’s a gun firing vs some other innocuous cause, and his department refused to allow the records of his brain scans to be admitted into evidence to determine if he were perfectly consistent in going after gun-like sounds (assuming it were a department that had brain scans going on for officers on duty).

But that’s a ridiculously non-applicable analogy. Any request for such brain scans would be deemed, at least in almost all conceivable circumstances as over reach by the defense. In reality all the cop has to do is say based on his training and experience he is comfortable in distinguishing the sound of gun fire in a city environment.

The proper analogy is to say that this company is not allowing for the experience and training testimony to be shown to the court. That would be how I would argue against probable cause in this case. However, as another comment in the thread discusses, this is probably not an issue since there is a heavy dose of parallel construction argument going on.

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

#219

Post by woodruffw »

remflight wrote: post #215
woodruffw wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they don’t reveal their methodology then how could this be used as evidence? It isn't used as evidence; it's used to manufacture pretext to justify collecting "real" evidence. SpotShotter is not an ignorant party: they understand that the service they sell to police departments is a pretextual laundromat for busting up whoever the police feel did the crime. That's the crux of this case: SpotShotter is being aske…

Isn’t that fruit of the poison tree though?

That's where the parallel construction part applies: ShotSpotter lets the police do "vibes based" policing (to put it nicely), and then parallel construct their way backwards to a "legitimate" source of evidence.

(If I'm being pedantic, "fruit of the poisonous tree" usually refers to illegally obtained evidence, which ShotSpotter is technically not. It's purely a source of investigatory pretext.)

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

#220

Post by pxmpxm »

bitbckt wrote: post #182
randyrand wrote: post #98

> selectively deployed in minority areas God this phrasing gets so annoying. If white neighborhood residents were being murdered in their streets, you really don’t think they’d put these devices there? Residents would be itching for them! It’s about catching murders - putting these devices in places with the most gun violence. Having police catch murderers is something we all want - rich neighborhoods included - and…

“I have a friend in Humbolt park” reads like “I have a [black/brown/asian/etc.] friend”. Have a little self-awareness.

Having spent a decade plus in chicago, I would suggest you go visit HP one hot summer night. It may make you reconsider that twitter cliche you wrote.
Post reply on HN