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

281–290 of 443 posts

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#281

Post by [deleted] »

kstenerud wrote: post #148
Aurornis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Putting surveillance for gun crime in areas with the highest rates of gun crime is obviously what’s happening. This is in fact the crux of the problem. By significantly increasing monitoring of areas with higher crime rates, you inadvertently create a vicious cycle feedback loop: The more you monitor an area, the more samples you get, biasing the stats (because your sampling is no longer uniform). Then these stats…

[deleted]

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#283

Post by hamburglar »

modriano wrote: post #276
hamburglar wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These devices don't send audio over the network unless a shooting-like noise is detected. How does this jibe with the fact that the police can apparently request a ShotSpotter operator review of audio recordings for up to 30 days if a known shooting is missed by the system? How does this jibe with the fact that the system has apparently at least twice recorded voice conversations that were used (and thrown out in o…

The website says the audio buffer on the sensor holds the last 30 hours before overwriting. So police have less than 30 hours to flag a missed shooting so shotspotter staff can check sensors for audio around the shooting time. Regarding the court cases, I literally included the entire linked info for one of those Court cases in the post you're responding to. For both of the cases, the verbal exchange was at the same…

I’d also like to enjoy being free from audio recording while near loud noises. And the argument that it is a wiretap has apparently not fallen apart in at least one court of law.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#284

Post by dash2 »

mcmcmc wrote: post #279
throwaway9917 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The tone of your article makes me honestly, really angry. You know damn well that the reason the sensors are in those neighborhoods are because that's where people are getting shot. You even talk about how a school where some little kid got shot has a sensor, as if it's some sort of punishment for the lower income people there. Perhaps it's because the police and the city government want to deter or solve murders tha…

Did we read the same article? The main concern is that millions are being pumped into a surveillance program of dubious efficacy with zero accountability and clear biases. Budget that could be allocated to social programs that have a dollar for dollar higher impact on reducing violent crime is instead going into the police industrial complex, increasing surveillance on underprivileged communities instead of actually…

Could you give some statistics that back up the claim that social programs have a higher impact on crime than Shotspotter?

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#285

Post by Fnoord »

jcrawfordor wrote: post #125
jcrawfordor wrote: post #71

Hello all, occasionally I write what I consider "Albuquerque content" and I do not expect it to become broadly popular. This article is something I put together very quickly and it probably assumes a certain degree of familiarity with the political context around policing in Albuquerque (which either side will tell you is very contentious) and, more broadly, policing and civil justice. Even without the currently evol…

Let me follow up, and maybe I should write this up on CAB but I don't really want to get too much into police reform there, what I know factually about the ShotSpotter system. Most of this comes from discussions with APD leadership and officers in the context of the police oversight role I used to hold, and they are very much limited in what they can say. Some of this is specific to APD SOP and other police departmen…

Do you know how it communicates with ECC? Can it be MITMed?

Would it report if you were playing Counterstrike outside with speakers on? What if you were listening to some gangster rap with shots in it? Or just a Raspberry Pi with a speaker on with gunshot? It seems to me something like this can in theory DoS the ECC.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#287

Post by Amezarak »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #100
Amezarak wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People say this but I'm skeptical. I regularly leave valuables in my car. My windows have never been broken. I've never had anything stolen. Nor do I know anyone who has. All the stores have free-to-use, unlocked public bathrooms. All the product is available on the shelf for anyone to grab. When I go on travel to more urban locations, that's not what I see. Unfortunately the urban blight is creeping closer every yea…

City centers have far, far more theft crime objectively from a dollar value perspective. The vast majority of this crime comes from two sources: employers and police. This is widely documented fact.

I am extremely pro-labor and would have much stricter enforcement and severer penalties for wage theft, but home burglary, carjackings, and muggings are qualitatively different than wage theft and it does not make sense to compare the two.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#288

Post by jevoten »

kstenerud wrote: post #148
Aurornis wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Putting surveillance for gun crime in areas with the highest rates of gun crime is obviously what’s happening. This is in fact the crux of the problem. By significantly increasing monitoring of areas with higher crime rates, you inadvertently create a vicious cycle feedback loop: The more you monitor an area, the more samples you get, biasing the stats (because your sampling is no longer uniform). Then these stats…

Putting aside how easy it is to compensate for this (e.g. report gunshots per area under surveillance), I'm curious how much crime estimates based on ShotSpotter or general policing differ from the frequency with which dead bodies are produced by an area. This latter measure mostly immune to overpolicing bias.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#289

Post by boxed »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #240
pillusmany wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are the rates of drug dealing the same through?

Let me put it this way. The biggest drug epidemic of this century was the opioid crisis. Half a million Americans died. The primary people responsible are white billionaires, and we know exactly who they are — yet they were never even arrested.

The difference being that they convinced doctors to hand this stuff out like candy. It was all legal. Which is why it got that bad in the first place.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#290

Post by hobofan »

Aurornis wrote: post #197
kstenerud wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Putting surveillance for gun crime in areas with the highest rates of gun crime is obviously what’s happening. This is in fact the crux of the problem. By significantly increasing monitoring of areas with higher crime rates, you inadvertently create a vicious cycle feedback loop: The more you monitor an area, the more samples you get, biasing the stats (because your sampling is no longer uniform). Then these stats…

> The more you monitor an area, the more samples you get, biasing the stats So by monitoring an area with high crime rate, you catch more crime, which results in more policing for the area with a confirmed high crime rate? And that's a bad thing?

Yes, in a country filled with badly trained police that open deadly fire upon hearing a firework[0] or an acorn dropping on a car hood, more police presence is a bad thing.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39577403

Post reply on HN