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

ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

computer.rip

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 443 posts

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#101

Post by nkurz »

aCoreyJ wrote: post #61
whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Big cities are pretty safe. For instance you more likely to be a victim of a crime in rural northern Wisconsin, like Barron County, than you are in Milwaukee. Don't let your narrative be shaped by stats that aren't proportional.

I'm familiar enough with Barron County, WI to doubt this. I grew up in neighboring Rusk County and my mother spends about half her time in Cumberland. While there are some disturbing incidents of violent crime, very few people there would feel that are at high risk of being a crime victim.

My quick attempt at searching suggests violent crime is 220/100K for Barron (https://www.areavibes.com/barron-wi/crime/) versus 1,509/100K for Milwaukee (https://www.areavibes.com/milwaukee-wi/crime/). That site gives Barron an "A" for crime versus an "F" for Milwaukee.

These stats aren't quite perfect, since this is for Barron the town versus Barron the county, but it really doesn't seem to support your view. The other small towns in Barron County that I checked were rated even better than Barron itself and rated as "A+".

I'm willing to believe that there is some axis on which your statement is correct but I doubtful it's the one that most people would use. Can you offer any more support for your position than just your say so?

Edit: As a quick gauge for others, I'll mention that most cars are still kept unlocked. The joke was that they were only locked in the fall, to prevent people from "gifting" you their excess zucchini. My father always left the keys in his cars as well, in case someone needed to borrow it. Our house was locked only if we left for long vacations. The key was lost sometime after I left home, and no attempt was made to replace it. I'm not nearly as familiar with Milwaukee, but I'd be surprised if this is the norm there.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#102

Post by loteck »

Aurornis wrote: post #65
loteck wrote: post #46

I would request that a crowd as technically sophisticated as HN move past marketing claims when discussing this system. "Gunshot detection" is pure marketing. The devices are hot mics — public audio surveillance. The software layer triggers alerts on loud noises, which are sent off to a facility that is little more than a call center, for characterization by a human worker there. This system detects door slams and po…

> This system detects door slams and popped volleyballs just as well as it detects gun fire (which is to say, imperfectly on all counts). Sound classification moved far beyond what you’re claiming years ago. If you set the threshold at “imperfectly” then no system will ever meet your bar, because perfect is an unreasonable threshold. However, the claim that we’re unable to differentiate between gunshots and car doors…

Shotspotter falsely classifies popped volleyball as gunshot:

https://www.wtol.com/article/news/local/false-shotspotter-al...

Slamming doors:

https://www.axios.com/2022/04/07/campaign-zero-against-shots...

This list can go on. Jackhammer, nail gun, normal hammers.

https://voiceofsandiego.org/2020/09/22/shotspotter-sensors-s...

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#103

Post by TaylorAlexander »

xeckr wrote: post #76

>Many assumed that ShotSpotter coverage was concentrated in disadvantaged parts of the city, an unsurprising outcome but one that could contribute to systemic overpolicing. The author presents this as a negative but it is obviously a good thing. If there was an increase in gunfire in my neighbourhood I would hope that police increases their presence, lest the "disadvantages" begin to accumulate.

Your argument assumes that the devices are only used as marketed. My understanding is that this assumption doesn’t hold, and that police regularly use these systems as an excuse to harass people in poor neighborhoods. The reports I have read suggest that police will enter a neighborhood they want to patrol, and if they see someone they don’t like they can claim they were called in by shotspotter, then shake down the person and if they find something, arrest them for that. This is textbook over-policing, which I assure you would not want to have done to you, and that is the precise concern mentioned in the quote.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#104

Post by demondemidi »

grugagag wrote: post #91
chasd00 wrote: post #79

In Dallas I hear the pop-pop-pop of gunfire virtually every night in my oakcliff neighborhood. Even when the Cowboys score a touchdown you hear gunfire. The police have basically given up.

Are people shooting blanks?

I've never actually seen "blanks" at any sporting goods or gun store in the 15 years I was really into guns. Reloaders typically reload rifle bullets, so I find it highly unlikely anyone is shooting blanks. Especially during drunken sportsing celebrations.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#105

Post by bombcar »

dmurray wrote: post #66
defrost wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an interesting control system feedback complaint with a lot to it; * historically there's been a lot of "black crime" in the US due to the US police watching black neighbourhoods excessively and being absent elsewhere .. take this all the way back in time to Tulsa and before. * Subsequently there's been a lot of "black crime" as neighbourhoods have been destroyed by occasional mobs (Tulsa), frequent division…

"The police disproportionately focus on poor areas for drug possession / traffic offences / white collar crime" is an important criticism, and the kind of thing awareness of which leads to reform and fairness in policing. "There's just as much gun crime in rich areas as poor ones, but the police focus on the poor areas because of historical racism" is an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence,…

I guess you could believe that when rich people are murdered it is not reported and quietly hushed up, but when poor people are the full force of the state swings into action.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#106

Post by jacurtis »

nimbius wrote: post #64

Hard to imagine this can discern between things like engine backfires, fireworks and garbage trucks effectively enough to be anything more than a really expensive checkmark on some captains yearly performance review.

They can't. There are a lot of false positives. That has always been one of the biggest criticisms of Shotspotter.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#107

Post by loteck »

Vaslo wrote: post #59

One thing missed in this writing is that shotspotter also saves lives. In my city, people shot in the alley and left for dead are found shortly after they are shot because of the detection. Without this tech, some would be left to a slow death in an alley where no one would find them until morning.

It may incidentally do that? But if it reliably saved lives you would be selling it to ambulance dispatchers.

In reality, ambulance dispatchers would look at the high rate of Shotspotter dispatching a car and finding absolutely nothing and immediately recognize this proposal would harm people by sending emergency services on wild goose chases while real emergencies suffer longer wait times.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#108

Post by redeeman »

fasthands9 wrote: post #25
delichon wrote: post #7

> It's not perfect, but the distance from your house to a ShotSpotter sensor correlates fairly well with your household income. The wealthier you are, the less surveilled you are. To give ABQ police the benefit of the doubt, that pattern could also be compatible with more gun crime equaling more surveillance. It would be nice to have enough gun crime and sensor location data to see how true that is. When the sensors…

I'm curious if the author lives in the wealthier or non wealthy region. I do not own a gun. I currently live in a city and would be happy to learn they were installing shot spotter near me. It's maybe the least intrusive type of surveillance there is. It just says a signal if there is a loud noise in public. edit: previous statement not correct but leaving it up as it's been responded to

just remember, the shotspotter may well make police come.... AFTER you were shot... why the aversion to getting a gun??

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#110

Post by lucubratory »

Scoundreller wrote: post #70
itishappy wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many assumed that ShotSpotter coverage was concentrated in disadvantaged parts of the city, an unsurprising outcome but one that could contribute to systemic overpolicing. Also > Conversations recorded by ShotSpotter sensors have twice been introduced as evidence in criminal trials.

> Conversations recorded by ShotSpotter sensors have twice been introduced as evidence in criminal trials. More importantly, how many times were collected conversations used and acted upon in an investigation and not been introduced as evidence?

Exactly, instituting pervasive audio surveillance is bad even if it's rarely used in court, because it can and will still be used for parallel construction.
Post reply on HN