ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood • Hacker News Board

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#321

Post by mcmcmc » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:21 PM UTC

dash2 wrote: post #284

mcmcmc wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Johns Hopkins has plenty of great research:

“Funding for programs that clean and rehabilitate blighted and abandoned property are associated with both decreases in gun violence of up to 39% over one year and improved community health.” https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutio...

To be fair after checking SoundThinking’s website they do have some research showing similar levels of violence reduction, so I don’t think it’s fair to outright claim one is more effective on a per-dollar basis without knowing all the associated costs. However surveillance is a reactive solution (or a deterrent if you’re really on board with a police state), whereas community-based programs are preventative.

I can see there being room for both but any public surveillance on that level has to have serious public accountability.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#322

Post by ragazzina » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:21 PM UTC

eBombzor wrote: post #252

Jcowell wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What lethal force is necessary when responding to a phenomenon that regular in mass occurs at least once a year in this country? Lightning up fire works is something I would expect a juvenile to do.

I like how all 3 replies ignored the part where I put in context "the moment police were getting close", as if to assume I was asking why fireworks were ignited at night in general. I saw the body cam footage, and the cops legitimately thought someone was shooting at them, because when they got close, they heard, what literally sounded like gunshots. Should they have just blind fired? Absolutely not, terrible trainin…

>the cops legitimately thought someone was shooting at them

But cops always "legitimately" think someone is shooting at them. Have you heard of the acorn incident?

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#323

Post by mcmcmc » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:29 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #304

mcmcmc wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If I were in one of these high crime neighborhoods where people are getting shot, I would want more surveillance and police. This position that they're being exploited by surveillance is mostly a rich white cosmopolitan belief rooted in fantasy > In fact, large majorities of residents in low-income “fragile communities” — including in both urban and rural areas — want more police presence, not less. In the more than…

Wow you did a great job cherry-picking from that article. Notice how the survey mentioned “police”, not covert surveillance.

People want more, better-trained police, not a third party listening in and directing police resources based on biased data, proprietary algorithms, and human analysts with dubious training and no public accountability.

All you’re telling me is that you lack human empathy and aren't interested in understanding the systemic causes of violence.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#324

Post by hcfman » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:30 PM UTC

mszcz wrote: post #273

hcfman wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I developed a TDOA based sound localization system for the Raspberry Pi https://medium.com/@kim_94237/tdoa-sound-localization-with-t... and with manual input you can greatly improve the accuracy from what an automatic system could do due to noise and signal degradation. However it’s very time consuming. The service level response would not be met if doing this on many cases I’m sure. Meaning the default accuracy of l…

This looks awesome. I’ve been wondering if it would be practical/feasible to create something similar but portable, self-contained for quieter, „local” sounds, like for instance locating a termite-like bug(s?) that’s been terrorizing my sanity for years now hiding in wooden beams.

Yeah, for short close distances sound camera of phase difference of arrival localization is interesting.

I did wonder about finding mice. I connected an ultra-sonic microphone once and saw lots of squeaks that were probably mice. I suspect the accuracy is sufficient.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#325

Post by koolba » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:31 PM UTC

dmoy wrote: post #171

jcrawfordor wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> less than five percent of cases Wow that's even worse than what I had read from reports about the deployment in Chicago (which I read up on when Seattle was considering it). I think the value was like 10%. Chicago also ditched it recently I think.

> Chicago also ditched it recently I think.

Kind of. The mayor said he was shutting it down for not being effective. And then he went and renewed the contract until just after the DNC convention: https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2024/02/22/shotspotte...

My read is that they know it does work but they don’t want to continue to use it because statistically the “wrong” people are committing the crimes it’s tipping off.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#326

Post by bnralt » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:35 PM UTC

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #309

bnralt wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed a lot of people start with the desire to not enforce laws, and work from there. So when there's more law enforcement activity in poorer areas, we get claims that the poor are being targeted and overpoliced. But when the wealthier people say they want more law enforcement in their area, the response is always "Why are safe areas like yours trying to take these law enforcement resources away from the poor…

The funniest part is having a (presumably) wealthy person knowledgeably inform poor people, who are the victims of these crimes, that they are "overpoliced". From the point of view of someone who can roll into a poor area, say they are "overpoliced", and roll out again...yes, it probably does that seem way. That is because they aren't likely to get shot so the police are the problem, not the bullets. For the person w…

Yeah, I always get the impression that the people talking about this really haven't spoken to the people in these neighborhoods. I've walked in neighborhoods here where the longtime residents came up to me and told me I should leave because it was dangerous (and I've spoken to others who have had a similar experience). It's always the people who grew up in suburbs and moved to the city as an adult who are dismissive of crime.

Crime and poor schools are usually what make "bad neighborhoods" bad. It's why many of the people there will save and downsize to move to nicer neighborhoods. Whenever I've talked to people living in those areas, they always want more enforcement and to have their neighborhoods cleaned up.

A lot of people want to speak for the residents there, without ever actually speaking to the residents there.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#327

Post by ltbarcly3 » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:39 PM UTC

mcmcmc wrote: post #321

dash2 wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Johns Hopkins has plenty of great research: “Funding for programs that clean and rehabilitate blighted and abandoned property are associated with both decreases in gun violence of up to 39% over one year and improved community health.” https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-gun-violence-solutio... To be fair after checking SoundThinking’s website they do have some research showing similar levels of violence reductio…

This sounds an awful like it is saying the solution to crime is to gentrify? What happened to the communities in the study? If you suddenly increase property values in a community where almost everyone rents, guess how many can afford to stay?

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#328

Post by jncfhnb » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:43 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #308

nonrandomstring wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The frustrating problem with people down voting without any explanation is that simply ignoring the knowledge of experts and hiding whatever has emotionally enraged you does not further the discussion.

I think people don't "trust the experts" when they read the "experts" saying things like 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. The wealthier you are, the less surveilled you are. This sets off the bs alarms to me. The author k…

Are you saying the quoted passage is a lie?

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#329

Post by Retric » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:43 PM UTC

verteu wrote: post #179

Retric wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are multiple conversations from shot spotter admitted into court. New Bedford, Connecticut and Oakland had court cases off the top of my head, but a much wider range of conversation ends up being listened to by police and parallel construction is a thing. Further, the concern is unequal policing biases statistics resulting in more uneven policing. A grid of microphones covering a full city is unbiased, placemen…

No, in New Bedford, the "conversation" was not admitted into court [1]. Oakland is the "one" case I mentioned [2]. Do you have a source for the Connecticut case? [1] "New Bedford utilized ShotSpotter, and the following was recorded by the gunfire detection system: “‘Oh my God! You're crazy!’ and then ‘Jason don‘t!’ several times, followed by a number of gunshots. After the gunshots, a female was heard yelling ‘You .…

That's what I get from faulty memory. However, evidence is still being used even when it's not directly brought up in court.

"In the 2015 Massachusetts case, the court refused to allow the introduction of ShotSpotter audio after the defendant argued the audio was captured and obtained in violation of that state’s wiretap laws. Police in that case requested and received an extended audio clip from the company that captured people discussing the shooting, including one calling out the defendant’s name."

In theory any evidence from those audio recordings is tainted and no longer admissible, therefore police should want to avoid listing to any of it. But... by not bringing it up in court police can use parallel construction to get around those issues.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#330

Post by User23 » Sun, Mar 03, 2024, 1:44 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #226

User23 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't realize that there's a conservation law for crime. Is this some kind of ingenious application of Noether's theorem that I haven't heard of?

If you're going to be sarcastic, you should to make a point that makes sense. Criminals react to successful surveillance and law enforcement. It's idiotic to suggest that they wouldn't.

You are still claiming that crime is conserved. It's not possible, even likely, that a reduced cost-benefit for committing crime shifts preferences toward some non-criminal activity with a more attractive risk-reward profile?