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

81–90 of 443 posts

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#81

Post by zemo »

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.

as a community we really ought to be suspicious of claims like this. There's another word for "acoustic sensor" and it's "microphone". When a corporation says "trust us, we only use the data for good", we should collectively raise our eyebrows, knowing that when data is collected for one stated purpose and stored, that the data at rest will always be used for additional purposes. Once data is collected, the number of things it may be used for is always unbounded; any claims to the contrary should not be taken at face value.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#82

Post by Amezarak »

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.

People say this but I'm skeptical. I regularly leave valuables in my car. My windows have never been broken. I've never had anything stolen. Nor do I know anyone who has.

All the stores have free-to-use, unlocked public bathrooms. All the product is available on the shelf for anyone to grab.

When I go on travel to more urban locations, that's not what I see. Unfortunately the urban blight is creeping closer every year, and judging by the crime reports, in a few years or decades I too will be experiencing these joys.

I have heard in especially bad-off areas desperate meth addicts are a theft issue. Usually they target people they know, so small comfort as it may be to their friends and relatives, it's usually not a random crime.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#83

Post by mandevil »

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

Shotspotter is trash.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/chicago-watchdog-harshly...

https://twitter.com/greg_doucette/status/1512138327205589004 (criminal defense attorney)

https://boingboing.net/2022/04/12/shotspotter-wastes-million...

I supported units with them while I was a contractor to the US Army, and the soldiers I talked to didn't think much of it either.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#84

Post by assimpleaspossi »

bastawhiz wrote: post #35
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

> 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 st…

It sounds like you are paranoid. Why would the government be listening to a conversation you might be having near a device used for tracking gunshots? Is there some little man somewhere just waiting to pounce on you or anyone just for that purpose?

I don't know how effective these devices are but any tool that helps the police go after criminals is a good thing and no one should be fighting against good things.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#85

Post by SoftTalker »

sneak wrote: post #55
bastawhiz wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 st…

“paranoid” is a symptom of a disease involving delusions (ie false beliefs) and is not a synonym for “anxious about”. It’s also not paranoia if the government does actively conspire to imprison as many people as possible on flimsy evidence. Both possible usages are incorrect here.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#86

Post by dkarras »

bastawhiz wrote: post #29
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…

> more gun crime equaling more surveillance But if you're not listening for the guns then you're not going to find the crime that does happen, will you? It's either saying "we don't care about it because it's less frequent" (which is stupid—you still build a fire station in places where buildings burn down less frequently) or "it's easier to keep ourselves busy when we fish in a barrel".

you can definitely tell gun crime has happened without listening to the sounds of it. people die, get hurt, police reports are made etc. we don't typically determine if gun crime has happened by... listening do we?

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#88

Post by knicholes »

I think it's lame to limit the detection to just gun shots. Like the web has analytics, I think real life could have audiolytics. One example: I can collect all the data I want from my backyard and give a report to my neighbor about exactly how long and how loudly their dog has been barking.

I can hear which birds have been in my backyard.

I can... hear what a customer says about my product in-store and offer them coupons at checkout or later or get feedback about my product...

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#89

Post by lotsofpulp »

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.

> and that the wealthier you are the more likely you’d NOT want to be where the shots are.

The way this is phrased sounds like “the poorer you are, the more likely you would want to be where the shots are”. Which is obviously false.

Re: ShotSpotter: listening in on the neighborhood

#90

Post by yojo »

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

The author’s neighborhood is mentioned in the article.

“The "pocket of poverty" south of Downtown where I live, the historically Spanish Barelas and historically Black South Broadway, are predictably well covered.”

Post reply on HN