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

351–360 of 443 posts

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#351

Post by enobrev »

splintercell wrote: post #298
smt88 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you know no one called it in? Also ShotSpotter has false positives. You have no way of knowing if you (or it) even heard a gun or one of many other things.

What's the problem with false positives in this case? I'm pretty sure, "don't bother with this technology which reports shots to the cops, because it has false positives" is a very weak argument.

If police show up to your family residence with guns drawn for a false positive, you might have a different perspective.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#352

Post by jncfhnb »

bko wrote: post #346
jncfhnb wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the quoted passage is a lie?

There's two explanations: 1. Cops use enforcement on poor neighborhoods because they like to make their lives difficult and because they hate poor people 2. Cops use enforcement there because that's where the crimes take place Explanation 2 is so obviously much more likely that I can't take the person that purports reason #1 without acknowledging the other explanation. They're playing dumb.

The answer is obviously 2. However that does not make the quoted passage a lie.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#353

Post by jakelazaroff »

WalterBright wrote: post #267
jakelazaroff wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the murder rate easy to measure? As best we can tell, “stand your ground” laws in states like Florida result in hundreds of deaths each year. How many of those would be considered murder in other states? Police killed over 1,300 people last year. How many of those people truly posed an immediate danger to others, and how many were murdered by a trigger-happy cop who was not held accountable by his colleagues? Crim…

> Is the murder rate easy to measure? Yes. The medical examiner decides if a death is homicide or not. > result in hundreds of deaths each year Lacks context - the number of homicides in the same year. > How many of those would be considered murder in other states? They're still considered homicide. > Police killed over 1,300 people last year That figure is for all deaths where police were involved. A subset of that…

None of this addresses my point. You can measure dead bodies. Whether or not those get counted in the murder rate depends on social factors — are police honestly investigating themselves? are there laws that exculpate killing humans? etc

Arizona has a bill in the works that would make it legal to kill people trespassing anywhere on one’s land, intended to allow farmers with large plots of land to shoot migrants. The bill will probably get vetoed, but in a world where it passes it’s very likely that the number of killings will increase but the number of murders will drop.

Dead bodies are objective. “Murder” is not.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#354

Post by geraldwhen »

bnralt wrote: post #326
skippyboxedhero wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In my area teachers are assigned somewhat randomly to schools. The goodness or badness of a school is 100% correlated with the kids, not the teachers. A single disruptive child can stop a class. When most of the class is disruptive, good luck teaching anything to anyone

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#355

Post by Retric »

jjallen wrote: post #235
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…

Isn’t this whole article about shooting though and not drug crime? How would you hear drug crime? Are shooting crimes known to be fairly evenly distributed across different incomes?

ShotSpotter is recording conversations inside peoples homes and on the street. You can definitionally hear someone making a drug deal or talking about the joint their smoking etc.

I'm reasonably concerned that once recordings exist getting access to them is much easier, especially as police have already heard many conversations taken from these recordings.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#356

Post by jojobas »

bombcar wrote: post #8
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…

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.

You see, both gentrification and white flight are bad, and so is the very existence of low-crime underpoliced neighborhoods.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#357

Post by lolinder »

bko wrote: post #346
jncfhnb wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying the quoted passage is a lie?

There's two explanations: 1. Cops use enforcement on poor neighborhoods because they like to make their lives difficult and because they hate poor people 2. Cops use enforcement there because that's where the crimes take place Explanation 2 is so obviously much more likely that I can't take the person that purports reason #1 without acknowledging the other explanation. They're playing dumb.

Two thoughts:

1) Why is this conversation happening in this subthread? What does this have to do with nonrandomstring's experience in doing similar work for the military?

2) Nothing in the passage you quoted insinuates anything about the reasoning for surveiling poor neighborhoods more than rich. It simply points out that this is a thing that is happening.

Earlier they said this:

> Many assumed that ShotSpotter coverage was concentrated in disadvantaged parts of the city, an unsurprising outcome but one that could contribute to systemic overpolicing.

It's unsurprising because that is where the crime tends to take place, but there's a valid concern raised that this is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I've read some highly political anti-police rants in the past few years, but this isn't one of them. The author barely makes their opinions known at all, and when they do they're very aware of the complexities.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#358

Post by jojobas »

pillusmany wrote: post #238
scheme271 wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's biasing the sample. For example, drug usage among teens are roughly the same between white, hispanic and african americans but african americans are more likely to be arrested and charged for drug possession or usage. Here the difference is probably because african americans are stopped and searched more even though their usage is about the same as whites.

Are the rates of drug dealing the same through?

And the rates of drug-related violence and property crimes.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#359

Post by lolinder »

bko wrote: post #347
the_gipsy wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like you are grossly distorting the author's rationale, and playing dumb. What's your agenda?

I'm distorting the author by quoting his article?

The quote doesn't insinuate anything like what you claim it's insinuating. I don't believe you're intentionally distorting their intent, but I do think they you're reacting to other pieces you've read before in a similar genre rather than to the article and author at hand.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#360

Post by bko »

lolinder wrote: post #357
bko wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's two explanations: 1. Cops use enforcement on poor neighborhoods because they like to make their lives difficult and because they hate poor people 2. Cops use enforcement there because that's where the crimes take place Explanation 2 is so obviously much more likely that I can't take the person that purports reason #1 without acknowledging the other explanation. They're playing dumb.

Two thoughts: 1) Why is this conversation happening in this subthread? What does this have to do with nonrandomstring's experience in doing similar work for the military? 2) Nothing in the passage you quoted insinuates anything about the reasoning for surveiling poor neighborhoods more than rich. It simply points out that this is a thing that is happening. Earlier they said this: > Many assumed that ShotSpotter cover…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN