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

421–430 of 443 posts

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#421

Post by Talanes »

bko wrote: post #364
mcmcmc wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So people want more police presence but they draw the line of microphones to listen to gunfire to triangulate crime and arrest murderers? Seems like the second one is a lot less egregious but I guess since I don't have "source" you win the argument. I'm pretty sure we should start arresting people who kill other people and remove them from society. Pretty high on priority

You're taking the key crux of the argument, whether ShotSpotter works, as just a given. Just straight up begging the question.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#422

Post by jstarfish »

Spooky23 wrote: post #378
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.

Or... 3. Cops use performative enforcement in poor neighborhoods because it yields metrics important to them with minimal effort. Poor neighborhoods are often demanding and crying out for enforcement of laws. Nobody wants to live next to a crackhouse, and the people forced to lack options to leave. In my city, there's a notorious drug house that has been in operation since I was in college in the 1990s. It has better…

> When the powers that be say "clean up that area", they round up stupid kids for bullshit, maybe hit up a few street dealers, etc. The actual hard work, say arresting street gang leadership or investigating property crimes isn't sexy and takes time.

Shotspotter is useless (5% is at best par for the course for every intelligence appliance I've used myself) but your expectations are unrealistic.

You're berating them for shaking down street kids for intelligence, then berating them for not taking down gang leaders? Lmao.

That's an impossible situation you've created. How about you demonstrate how policing should be done?

> why would they need microphones to tell them where gunshots go off?

Not where, when.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#423

Post by User23 »

smt88 wrote: post #350
User23 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Conservation of crime isn't a claim I made and it isn't relevant to my comment. If ShotSpotter were successful, crime would move to a different area and/or go down. Arrests would be made, so it's impossible to assume crime rates wouldn't change in that scenario. Neither happening in correlation with ShotSpotter installation, which is one way we know these tactics don't actually work.

There are far too many confounds to draw a conclusion like "these tactics don't actually work." Speeding up police response to gunfire isn't going to have a measurable impact if the police aren't actually allowed to do anything when they get there, except maybe call the paramedics.

We know at least one of the tactics that does work, because Mayor Bloomberg and the NYPD provided demonstrative proof (and saved thousands of lives by drastically reducing murders). However, that also relies on Bayesian priors (or is it racism?) and thus has become unfashionable amongst the current ruling urban elite. It is highly plausible that a technology like ShotSpotter would be highly effective making such preemptive interventions more data driven and effective.

Unfortunately, the ideological blinders many people choose to wear around criminology really makes it difficult to constructively discuss or address. After all this study is trying to present, in a weaselly way, the claim that ShotSpotter actually increases shootings. I'd love to hear the proposed mechanism for that. I'm sure it's something that makes superstition look sensible.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#424

Post by AvocadoPanic »

Eextra953 wrote: post #395
AvocadoPanic wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The criminal element largely responsible for gun crime would criminally ignore the ban. They're already shooting people. The US shares a 3,145 kilometer long border with Mexico, unfortunately there are at best 1,044 km of border 'barriers' in place. People, guns, money and drugs are smuggled across the border daily.

Guns aren't smuggled in from the Southern border. If anything guns are smuggled out of the USA into mexico, how do you think the cartels get their guns?

Guns in bulk are smuggled south, guns come north with criminals. You can see this in the seizure stats.

In the context of banning guns, any movement north is too much.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#425

Post by incanus77 »

aaron695 wrote: post #340
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...

You can listen to the ShotSpotter audio from that incident here - https://www.chicagocopa.org/case/2024-0002095/ I see nothing wrong done by ShotSpotter. It accurately reported the location of a noise that sounded like gunfire. What is timely about this? Do you want the police to not investigate gunshots? I don't care about how they approached the scene, their training has nothing to do with ShotSpotter which is the…

As detailed in the article, the placement of ShotSpotter sensors in the Albequerque area roughly correlates to wealth and class. And it details the ShotSpotter culture of secrecy around sensor placement, so that even police departments don't necessarily know where the sensors are.

Combine that with the racially-charged patterns of policing in this country[1][2], where certain populations are disproportionately profiled and experience use-of-force incidents.

It's extremely timely in the sense that at present, we have systemic problems with where police force is being directed, and ShotSpotter is likely helping tip those scales — but not in the right direction.

[1] https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/racial-profiling-texas-r...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/system...

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#427

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#430

Post by wahnfrieden »

Amezarak wrote: post #287
wahnfrieden wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s directly comparable to say shoplifting which is one of the social ills complained about in this discussion

Police theft is directly comparable to burglary (which police and employers each on their own manage to vastly outnumber) or even carjacking (police civil forfeiture accounts for many jacked cars and the encounters can involve violence and coercion under threat of immediate violence or execution)

Post reply on HN