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

61–70 of 443 posts

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#61

Post by aCoreyJ »

whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #44
defrost wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an interesting control system feedback complaint with a lot to it; * historically there's been a lot of "black crime" in the US due to the US police watching black neighbourhoods excessively and being absent elsewhere .. take this all the way back in time to Tulsa and before. * Subsequently there's been a lot of "black crime" as neighbourhoods have been destroyed by occasional mobs (Tulsa), frequent division…

[flagged]

Big cities are pretty safe. For instance you more likely to be a victim of a crime in rural northern Wisconsin, like Barron County, than you are in Milwaukee.

Don't let your narrative be shaped by stats that aren't proportional.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#63

Post by wonnage »

torstenvl wrote: post #58
defrost wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an interesting control system feedback complaint with a lot to it; * historically there's been a lot of "black crime" in the US due to the US police watching black neighbourhoods excessively and being absent elsewhere .. take this all the way back in time to Tulsa and before. * Subsequently there's been a lot of "black crime" as neighbourhoods have been destroyed by occasional mobs (Tulsa), frequent division…

Please don't engage in ideological warfare, it's boring and against site guidelines. No reasonable person could look at any meaningful measure of violent crime rates and come to your conclusions.

[flagged]

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#65

Post by Aurornis »

loteck wrote: post #46

I would request that a crowd as technically sophisticated as HN move past marketing claims when discussing this system. "Gunshot detection" is pure marketing. The devices are hot mics — public audio surveillance. The software layer triggers alerts on loud noises, which are sent off to a facility that is little more than a call center, for characterization by a human worker there. This system detects door slams and po…

> This system detects door slams and popped volleyballs just as well as it detects gun fire (which is to say, imperfectly on all counts).

Sound classification moved far beyond what you’re claiming years ago.

If you set the threshold at “imperfectly” then no system will ever meet your bar, because perfect is an unreasonable threshold. However, the claim that we’re unable to differentiate between gunshots and car doors is extremely incorrect.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#66

Post by dmurray »

defrost wrote: post #30
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…

There's an interesting control system feedback complaint with a lot to it; * historically there's been a lot of "black crime" in the US due to the US police watching black neighbourhoods excessively and being absent elsewhere .. take this all the way back in time to Tulsa and before. * Subsequently there's been a lot of "black crime" as neighbourhoods have been destroyed by occasional mobs (Tulsa), frequent division…

"The police disproportionately focus on poor areas for drug possession / traffic offences / white collar crime" is an important criticism, and the kind of thing awareness of which leads to reform and fairness in policing.

"There's just as much gun crime in rich areas as poor ones, but the police focus on the poor areas because of historical racism" is an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence, and the kind of thing that holds back improvements in police work.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#67

Post by hattmall »

grubbs wrote: post #19
rideontime wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they?

Even in Baltimore where police response times can be total garbage..they will show up for shot spotter. At least from my experience. Calling 911 for anything else there is a long delay unfortunately. Last time I called for a car jacking right outside my home I was on hold for ten mins. Cops didn't arrive for another 20.

Because shotspotter can triangulate and give accurate location of shots. When people call in the area they need to cover can be massive.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#68

Post by whatwhaaaaat »

aCoreyJ wrote: post #61
whatwhaaaaat wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Big cities are pretty safe. For instance you more likely to be a victim of a crime in rural northern Wisconsin, like Barron County, than you are in Milwaukee. Don't let your narrative be shaped by stats that aren't proportional.

Isn’t Milwaukee one of the most segregated cities in the country with low income higher crimes areas juuust outside city lines? Great example.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#70

Post by Scoundreller »

itishappy wrote: post #27
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…

> Many assumed that ShotSpotter coverage was concentrated in disadvantaged parts of the city, an unsurprising outcome but one that could contribute to systemic overpolicing. Also > Conversations recorded by ShotSpotter sensors have twice been introduced as evidence in criminal trials.

> Conversations recorded by ShotSpotter sensors have twice been introduced as evidence in criminal trials.

More importantly, how many times were collected conversations used and acted upon in an investigation and not been introduced as evidence?

Post reply on HN