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

31–40 of 443 posts

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#31

Post by JoshTriplett »

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

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.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#35

Post by bastawhiz »

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

> 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 storing those recordings securely, being handled by only authorized persons, and being deleted within a timely manner.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#36

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#37

Post by wahnfrieden »

petee wrote: post #2

I had no idea ShotSpotter was recording conversations, always assumed the nature of analyzing for a sound signature would be throwing much of the data away immediately

That’s because it’s generalized surveillance tech marketed to the public as personal safety tech (which it is not per the data)

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#39

Post by fasthands9 »

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.

Fair enough. My previous statement was incorrect. Edited above.

I understand the hypothetical case they could be misused but I'm still not aware of any cases they actually were.

>On June 8, 2007, the Shotspotter acoustic gunshot detection and location system recorded two gunshots from the corner of 83rd Avenue and Birch Street in Oakland, California. The first one, at 11:10:22 p.m., was at 8236 Birch Street, and the second one, 24 seconds later at 11:10:46 p.m., was at 1775 83rd Avenue. Those addresses are less than 10 feet apart. The recording of the second shot also captured the voice of Tyrone Lyles, apparently addressing the person who shot him: "Ar, Ar, why are you going to do me like that, Ar."

I am happy shotspotter helped in the prosecution of this person who needlessly killed someone. I realize there could be ways to abuse this for things having nothing to do with gun violence, but you could also say DUI traffic stops or DNA collection could be misued. That doesn't mean they are misused.

Post reply on HN