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

181–190 of 443 posts

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#181

Post by bandrami »

Aurornis wrote: post #73
bombcar wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like shotspotters are likely to be near where shots are; and that the wealthier you are the more likely you’d NOT want to be where the shots are.

Putting surveillance for gun crime in areas with the highest rates of gun crime is obviously what’s happening. I think the author and some commenters are nervous about claims that gun crime is inversely correlated with neighborhood wealth, which creates some of these strange accusations that some other bias is at play. If you pull up a map of crime in most cities the inverse correlation with home prices is obvious. I…

If you let inequality and unofficial segregation fester long enough eventually every map is the same map

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#182

Post by KennyBlanken »

fargle wrote: post #145

i broadly agree with the sentiment in this article, especially the "no public oversight" part. but this: > The reader can probably infer how this coverage pattern relates to race and class in Albuquerque. It's not perfect, but the distance from your house to a ShotSpotter sensor correlates fairly well with your household income. is facetious and is almost certainly argued in bad faith. well, duh . the distance to the…

The vast number of reports are false, which if you read the rest of the article as serious consequences. It:

* results in many high-priority calls tying up the patrols in that area so residents who have serious issues, but not "active shooting" serious, get poorer service than people in predominantly white/wealthy neighborhoods. I think you'd be pretty annoyed if something of yours was stolen and police never show because a huge backlog of calls develops while they chase down shotspotter reports, but someone in a wealthier neighborhood reports a suspicious vehicle and police show up in minutes

* results in a lot of aggressive police action with police swarming an area looking for a "shooter." Given how discriminatory and hostile police are toward the poor and minorities, this has serious consequences....ranging from residents feeling like they're constantly being harassed, to death - a boy was shot and killed by police after setting off a firecracker that the shotspotter system reported.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#183

Post by eBombzor »

fennecbutt wrote: post #169
incanus77 wrote: post #54

Timely, as a boy was shot at last week in Chicago while setting off fireworks that triggered a ShotSpotter alert: https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2024/02/27/chicago-police...

[flagged]

The cops made a big mistake but why is there some juvenile sitting in the dark, middle of the night, lighting up fireworks the moment the police start getting close. That's what I don't understand. There is some weird stuff going on in this story and the article jumping to conclusions isn't helping.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#184

Post by bandrami »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #31
fasthands9 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

From the article: > Conversations recorded by ShotSpotter sensors have twice been introduced as evidence in criminal trials. In one case the court allowed it, in another the court did not. The possibility clearly exists, and depending on interpretation of state law, it may be permissible for ShotSpotter to record conversations on the street for future use as evidence.

Do I have an expectation of privacy in a conversation I have in public?

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#185

Post by chasd00 »

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?

No just random gunfire. People in their cars shooting in the air and then speeding off. They’re definitely not shooting at people otherwise it would be national news every night. I think the local police have resorted to a “just please aim in a safe direction” stance instead of trying to stop them. New years is especially annoying.

Something like shotspotter wouldn’t work for this because by the time you get the info and call it in the people doing the shooting are miles away and there isn’t a crime scene per se to investigate.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#186

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #55
bastawhiz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It just says a signal if there is a loud noise in public. This is probably false. There have been two convictions as a result of recordings of conversations that happened through the devices. I, for one, do not want microphones capable of recording my conversations placed near me by the government. Not because I'm paranoid the government is conspiring against me, but rather because I have zero confidence they're st…

“paranoid” is a symptom of a disease involving delusions (ie false beliefs) and is not a synonym for “anxious about”. It’s also not paranoia if the government does actively conspire to imprison as many people as possible on flimsy evidence. Both possible usages are incorrect here.

[deleted]

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#187

Post by skim_milk »

IceHegel wrote: post #172

This phrase "systemic overpolicing" and ShotSpotter both come from the same mind - the mind of the state. The state - which like most organizations is concerned mostly with preserving itself - has an interest in the surveillance of the population and in shifting blame from it's failures to deal with poverty and crime to skapegoats: the police, racism, property taxes, etc. The west is run by priests (professors, advis…

Hmm - preservers, creators, and destroyers doing their jobs. Is this not what a healthy, functional society looks like, at least in any philosophy grounded in (albeit painful) reality? Or would you rather the preservers stop doing their job and let the others discover the consequences of their self-destructive fantasy? We might learn how pathetically dependent everyone is on each other for the N+1th time in recorded history.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#188

Post by [deleted] »

rconti wrote: post #150
JoeyBananas wrote: post #3

I've experienced living in a neighborhood covered by shot spotter and hearing gun shots outside, and I think shot spotter is great. I want the cops to actually show up and arrest whoever is terrorizing everybody. Thank you very much

Just yesterday the cops apparently showed up at a house 5 doors down from me and shot someone's dog right in front of their family. Not sure if we have shotspotter, but at least I know the police responded! (I say apparently because, while I heard the gunshots, and I later saw a heavy police presence and animal control hauling away what appeared to be a dead small animal, I don't ACTUALLY know what happened because I…

[deleted]

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#189

Post by Blahah »

thereisnospork wrote: post #167
jakelazaroff wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you pull up a map of crime in most cities the inverse correlation with home prices is obvious. If the police department spends the majority of its resources on certain areas, it will respond to the majority of incidents and make the majority of arrests in those areas. You can truthfully say "look, these numbers are higher than anywhere else!" but that doesn't necessarily mean there's more crime happening there —…

>With regard to the article, why is it obvious that police are putting surveillance in areas with the highest rates of gun crime? Because there are nicer neighborhoods and less than nice neighborhoods? In so far as I can tell this is true to various degrees in every place I've ever lived or visited. Colloquially, some neighborhoods have manicured lawns, other neighborhoods have cars on blocks - it's 'obvious'[0] that…

> it's 'obvious'[0] that the latter warrants more policing.

Is it? I don't see it as at all obvious. It seems utterly ridiculous to me to increase policing in sync with socioeconomic deprivation. The blindingly obvious thing is to invest in solving the problems that cause the disparity, not to criminalize people who are living in poverty.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#190

Post by birdofhermes »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #15
gffrd wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has having ShotSpotter in your neighborhood increased the safety? Is there faster response? higher arrest rate? decrease in crime?

Is there any verifiable third party evidence that ShotSpotter (or whatever it’s called now) can even do what it claims to?

[dead]
Post reply on HN