ShotSpotter requests to be held in contempt rather than disclose its methodology • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by throwaway17_17 » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 3:57 AM UTC

tjpnz wrote: post #14

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?

In the US you can receive 6 months in jail for contempt. Perhaps the company should cease trading for the same period.

That is for each count of contempt and each incident of said contempt, in theory every refusal is a new count. I had a trial in February with a witness who refused to answer any questions, each refusal was ruled a contempt and the Judge settled at 7.5 years total for all the refusals (judge later amended to 3 years, but it is on appeal at the moment). All that to say, it could be more severe but it is unlikely that any jail will result.

*Not Legal Advise*

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

#222

Post by selectodude » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 3:58 AM UTC

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.

Lots of white people living in Humboldt Park. Are you at all familiar with Chicago?

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

#223

Post by daenz » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 3:59 AM UTC

elil17 wrote: post #209

daenz wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way of phrasing it is: these gunshot detection systems are deployed where the vast majority of gunshots occur.

Well the system wouldn’t really be a problem if it wasn’t faulty . It’s the false positives that are an issue. You could put it next to the house of the biggest gun nut in America and it still wouldn’t be a fair system because it just doesn’t work well.

According to the data from the uncharitable vice article, their numbers seem pretty good.

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

#224

Post by lazide » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:01 AM UTC

fastball wrote: post #124

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...

How can law enforcement use this technology to create crimes out of thin air?

To create pretexts to search out of thin air.

Bad part of oakland? Plenty of random gun shots happening, but no idea where exactly they are coming from - really it’s random spots.

But ShotSpotter can give you a high precision (really random) fix on someones house! Wait until it’s someone you want to search, and voila you can.

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

#225

Post by sacrosancty » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:02 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…

The article suggests that the police can go to Shotspotter and ask for some other convenient sound or perhaps even no sound at all(?) to be retroactively reclassified as a gunshot where they wanted it to be, so they can then use that as an excuse to stop the person they already wanted to or already did but didn't have a valid reason to. That's worse than random and worse than a policeman honestly mistaking a backfire for a gunshot.

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

#226

Post by woodruffw » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:03 AM UTC

irishloop wrote: post #203

I live in a city where ShotSpotter is often used to detect gun violence and it seems, at least from local reporting, that it's often accurate in detecting gunfire and often finds victim(s) on the scene, often uncooperative with police. In so far as I can tell, it seems to be doing its job, though I understand there are several institutions here which obviously are not trustworthy.

This is a classic example of the survivorship bias: local reporting doesn't report on the unknown proportion of cases that are false positives or wild goose chases. It also doesn't divulge where the police are putting their thumb on the scale by having ShotSpotter edit the "evidence" after the fact, as is alleged in this case.

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

#227

Post by pkongx » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:04 AM UTC

hnThrow280 wrote: post #169

I did R&D work for an NGO developing a clone of shotspotter and its kind. I spent an enormous amount of time examining all the variants on the market, including the last two decades of military versions from around the world. I documented all of their various accuracies across all the various axes, how many microphones they used, etc. I also went deep into the academic research to learn all the varied algorithms in u…

> I documented all of their various accuracies across all the various axes

If sharable, any links to these documents?

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

#228

Post by Syonyk » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:05 AM UTC

subroutine wrote: post #59

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…

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.

> ...the prosecution is going to have a bad time.

Probably not. Cop said it, court saw it written, that settles it. Now prove your innocence without the ability to face your accuser. They're a cop, of course they're 100% correct in everything they wrote down, so... yeah, pay your ticket.

I've seen this a few more times than I'm the slightest fan of, for me and other people accused of "impossible things" in cars (like "being clocked far faster than the car is capable of having accelerated to based on where it turned onto the road").

The prosecution has no problems with, "But the cop wrote that they saw you doing 70 in a 35, wrote the ticket for 45, and they're not here, so you're guilty."

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

#229

Post by pxmpxm » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:05 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #145

googlryas wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I didn't. It was somewhat of an offhand comment. I'll break it down a little more directly: 1) Jackson MS is 80+% black. 2) The (mayor + city council) of Jackson MS is 75% black 3) The command staff of Jackson MS police department is 100% black. 4) The city and police department decided to deploy shot spotter in Jackson 5) (don't get distracted by this please) The city has not deployed shot spotter in areas that…

Systems overtly or tacitly designed to fuck minorities tend to successfully fuck minorities even when operation of local mechanics are effected by minority agents. This may be non obvious but for example black cops tend to use disproportionate force against black suspects in areas where such behavior is culturally and systemically tolerated. Cops and suspects are in an adversarial situation and being part of team cop…

>Systems overtly or tacitly designed to fuck minorities tend to successfully fuck minorities even when operation of local mechanics are effected by minority agents.

An infallible argument; the oppressee can just as well be opressor, because otherwise we'd have to reconsider our preferred conjecture.

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

#230

Post by woodruffw » Thu, Jul 28, 2022, 4:07 AM UTC

jschveibinz wrote: post #80

I would like to post a slightly different angle to the discussion. Assumption: the majority of commenters are working in technology fields, and perhaps even technology startups. Let’s say that you have developed some software product that works pretty well for certain applications, but is certainly not perfect. But it works well enough that your customers are paying you to use your product. Now, your customers decide…

Yes. This is a foundational cornerstone of our legal system: we do not incarcerate people based on evidence that they cannot question or review.

Believe it or not, this is not a unique problem for technology fields. Courts have long understood that techniques are possibly sensitive, and allow for a broad variety of discovery techniques to accommodate the defendant's rights. A common one for software is to have an independent, court-overseen third party review the code and produce an affidavit affirming that the code does what it claims. Another is to only allow review of techniques in a controlled environment, where the defense cannot steal intellectual property.