[HN Gopher] Police are telling ShotSpotter to alter evidence fro... ___________________________________________________________________ Police are telling ShotSpotter to alter evidence from gunshot- detecting AI Author : danso Score : 357 points Date : 2021-07-26 14:27 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.vice.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.vice.com) | zucked wrote: | Shotspotter concerns me - the city I live in has paid millions | for a system and recently expanded it. I am not aware of _any_ | data that has been published from the system, even fuzzed data. | That doesn't pass the sniff test for me. | giantg2 wrote: | Wow, millions?! Do they have any cost/benefit data for this | system? | fnordfnordfnord wrote: | Of course not. They're hoping that a noise will some day | coincide with a crime so then they can write a press release | lauding the technology and the smart decision maker for | buying it. | anigbrowl wrote: | Find some like-minded people (perhaps including journalists), | pool some resources, and use FOIA to sue. If your chief of | police equivocates, call them a liar. Treat them like | criminals, accuse them of running a protection racket. | s1artibartfast wrote: | On one hand, it seems that Shotspotter lacks the accuracy to be | used in court. On the other hand, it seems like a valuable | probabilistic tool to help police perform detective work and | collect real admissible evidence. The problem seems to confusing | the two. | | You can use an Ouija board to help find video evidence, but the | video evidence still needs to show something incriminating. | ChrisKnott wrote: | In the Williams case, I feel like the key information is how | likely ShotSpotter is to miss a gunshot completely. | | They have video footage that shows the suspect and victim in | the suspect's car alone at 11:46. If the victim was shot at | 11:46 then this is extremely strong evidence of guilt, | especially as it would also show the suspect lied. It seems | reasonable to me that an algorithm might mistake a gunshot from | inside a car as a firecracker out on the street. The | classification aspect is not important. What the defence have | to argue is not just that this sound is a firecracker, but the | actual shot that killed the victim (which by the suspect's | account happened in the same place), was not captured. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I'm not familiar enough with the case to guess at strategy. | | The keys seems to be: If police have any evidence besides | ShotSpotter to connect the time and place of the shooting | with the video of the two of them together. | ChrisKnott wrote: | I don't they necessarily need other evidence for the time. | The article and most of the comments here are focussing on | its inaccuracy in geolocation and classification, but it | seems to be an accurate recording of loud sounds that ring | out across the city. A high false positive rate actually | works against the suspect. He needs it to have missed one. | s1artibartfast wrote: | I think that really depends on the frequency of loud | sounds detected. If possible gunshots are detected every | 2 minutes, false negatives don't really matter in this | case. | kyleblarson wrote: | Vice conveniently leaves out the fact that Toledo had a gun in | his hand with the slide locked back which means he had emptied | the clip. There is video of this. | ellenhp wrote: | Not to be pedantic but that's not what that means. That means | that the slide was pulled back then released with the slide | lock activated either manually or by an empty magazine. It's | advisable to store pistols in this way with the magazine | removed because it's generally the least threatening | configuration a pistol can be in short of being disassembled. | anigbrowl wrote: | Assumes facts not in evidence, to wit that he had a full clip | at the outset of the incident. | Zigurd wrote: | All technical support, including DNA, fingerprints, hair, fiber, | etc. in law enforcement should be controlled outside of police | departments and prosecutors, and should be made equally available | to defendants as well as police and prosecutors. | | With the level of conflict of interest, you can't call it | "science." | MisterTea wrote: | Using privacy badger and noticing Vice pages now redirect to a | 404 AFTER loading. Guess I'm not reading the article. | bell-cot wrote: | Privacy Badger, Firefox, and NoScript here, and I can read the | article fine. I'd suggest you try a few js-blocking add-ons. | cratermoon wrote: | Cops Lie. Here's a few examples. | | https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/nypd-shake... | | https://popculture.com/trending/news/target-starbucks-tampon... | | https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/us/police-mcdonalds-coffe... | | https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/08/1... | | https://popculture.com/trending/news/nypd-called-out-falsely... | | https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2019/07/police-lieutenant-w... | | https://www.foxla.com/news/deputies-arrest-kpcc-reporter-cov... | | https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-tay... | | https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939zda/how-stupid-do-cops... | | https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmv94x/testilying-cops-ar... | | https://www.ocregister.com/2020/09/25/oc-sheriffs-deputies-w... | | https://www.cjr.org/special_report/officials-say-chicago-pol... | | https://fair.org/home/6-elements-of-police-spin-an-object-le... | pmarreck wrote: | There needs to be a law that any technology used by law | enforcement in the course of doing business is open-source. | | I don't see how this isn't already the case given the lives at | stake | avh02 wrote: | How hard would it be to create a community network of crappy | microphones to do what shotspotter does? You have a million | phones that all have gps and microphones | kawfey wrote: | If i was a programmer, I would be making this. a small alexa- | like array of microphones on a RasPi for rough direction | estimate, times a bunch of networked units microphones to get | precise-ish TDoA, mounted on rooftops... | | I've always wanted to do this to record and report on the | number of gunshots I hear every night - hundreds go unreported | - and to get an accurate direction less prone to reflections. | Also to start an ML library to recognize thunder vs. fireworks | vs. dumpster lids vs. planks of lumber vs. misfires vs. | gunshots and other percussive noises. | __MatrixMan__ wrote: | If it meant an increased likelihood of catching the cops in a | lie, I'd host such a device on my roof. | | I'd just want an easy way to audit the outbound data so I could | become confident that it was only recording cases of: "Holy | crap that was an EXPLOSION" and not recording cases of: "Did | you hear what that guy said in his back yard?" | | It's not like anybody creating explosions has a reasonable | right to privacy. Everybody heard it, it might as well be | public record. This would just add timestamps. | Vaslo wrote: | Oh man the privacy folks are gonna hammer this comment hard. | jaegerpicker wrote: | I'm a huge privacy advocate but it makes some sense. If the | police and government is corrupt and using this tech, | creating a non-corrupt open-source community driven | alternative to combat the corruption is probably a net win | despite the privacy issues. The real win is to destroy the | Police surveillance state and tech but we as a people (the | US) seem incapable of real policing change. :( | Retric wrote: | I don't think people firing guns have a reasonable | expectation of privacy. Voluntarily submitting cellphone data | is already used for several things like traffic congestion | via Waze and related apps. | | I am vary pro privacy, but as long as it's voluntary I don't | have an issue with this. | rspeele wrote: | It would depend strongly on whether the phone is analyzing | the data from the mic and reporting to a server "possible | gunshot heard, GPS coords X,Y, volume-level 60%, gunshot- | like-score 75%" or whether the phone is sending raw | recordings from the mic to a server and trusting that the | server is only checking them for gunshot sound (not, say, | saving your private conversations). | | And of course it's difficult for the average user of an app | to tell the difference, or even for a tech savvy user to | tell without investing some time and effort. | Retric wrote: | I am going to assume significant processing would need to | happen on the device or your uploading audio 24/7 which | would have heavy bandwidth implications. I don't think | uploading individual sub 2 second sound clips with time | stamps is significant from a privacy standpoint, but it | might be in the middle of a long gunfight. | jaegerpicker wrote: | Yes hopefully all the analysis would happen on device but | that limits anything like a google home/alexa. Last I | looked neither device allowed processing on device. | avh02 wrote: | I'd not put that on my primary device either, maybe leave | a spare plugged in near an open window, etc | adrr wrote: | There are also the home assistance devices like Amazon Echos | that have an always on Mic. Amazon could be a huge surveillance | network for police with Ring video feed and a shot spotter | network of echo devices if they went down that road. | ghostbrainalpha wrote: | How would the phone differentiate between real gun shots, and | the gun shot noises my phone hears every day from the | Television I watch, or video games I play? | avh02 wrote: | You'd have to corroborate with the network I guess | mabbo wrote: | If we want to rely on this technology as being unbiased and | accurate, then it must be a purely one-directional flow of | information. Data should only flow from SpotShotter to the | police, and never in the other direction. No questions, no | inquiries, no anything. As soon as you do, you introduce bias or | at least the ability for bias to exist, intentional or otherwise. | | If the SpotShotter technology is as good as they claim, there | should never be a need. And if the police can't make a case with | what SpotShotter gives them, they shouldn't rely on it. | cryptonector wrote: | But also this should flow to the public in real-time for | archival and should be tamper-evident to prevent alterations. | Like a blockchain. | Decker87 wrote: | It will always flow back, at least in the form of dollars | spent. | fnordfnordfnord wrote: | > then it must be a purely one-directional flow of information. | | That's absolutely not possible. | chrisseaton wrote: | We used a shot detection system... in Afghanistan. Not really | sure it's needed in the United States. | rhizome wrote: | For some reason this isn't a felony offense by anybody involved. | Hokusai wrote: | > Greene found a fifth shot, despite there being no physical | evidence at the scene that Simmons had fired. Rochester police | had also refused his multiple requests for them to test his hands | and clothing for gunshot residue. | | This is the same that giving queues to a dog to bark to be able | to inspect someone or a vehicle. New tech, old tricks. No | technology will work if the people using it is corrupt. | Leparamour wrote: | >No technology will work if the people using it is corrupt. | | Put it on a blockchain then. | | Edit: I'm serious. Blockchain is exactly meant for application | inside zero-trust environments. If you think it's impossible to | put a video on blockchain, just have software making hash- | fingerprints at regular time intervals and save those on a | blockchain to make tampering with the video evident. | ahoy wrote: | No amount of new technology, training, equipment, or funding | with change this. US policing is fundamentally a broken system. | asdff wrote: | It still blows my mind how police are allowed to turn off body | cams while on the clock. That should be considered an offense | like a government official burning public documents, because | that's basically what is going on when you turn off the video. | It's uncanny how the cameras are almost always off whenever | something controversial happens. | reaperducer wrote: | _It still blows my mind how police are allowed to turn off | body cams while on the clock. That should be considered an | offense like a government official burning public documents, | because that 's basically what is going on when you turn off | the video_ | | It depends on the jurisdiction. In some police departments, | turning off a body camera is a punishable offense, up to and | including firing. | | It's up to your city leaders to enforce this, and override | the local police union's resistance, if possible. | giantg2 wrote: | Sometimes there are also privacy laws that would need to be | addressed at the state level. For example, many places | prohibit the camera from being active in a private | residence unless permission is granted by the resident. | kbenson wrote: | Unless police see what they believe is a crime in | progress, they aren't supposed to enter a private | residence without permission anyway, right? I'm not sure | how that can't be easily dealt with even in the | problematic states by saying that permission for the | police to enter the premises is also permission for them | to record. | giantg2 wrote: | They could be responding to a non-criminal call, like a | welfare check. Permission to enter isn't considered the | same as permission to record in some states. | | Yes, they could change the laws about recording. In many | cases, not just for police, they probably should. | dragonwriter wrote: | > They could be responding to a non-criminal call, like a | welfare check. | | Armed law enforcement responding to calls without an | evident need for armed law enforcement is itself a | problem. | kbenson wrote: | Probably true, and goes to complaints from police | officers that they're also expected to be counselors as | well as enforcers. | | On the other hand, asking someone to go into a situation | that may put themselves at risk (for some cases of | welfare checks) without appropriate training or equipment | (or leaving the distinction of which is which to some | third party not on the scene) doesn't seem like a good | idea either, and at the point where you have a force | that's equipped to protect themselves and possibly | restrain others, that begins to sounds a lot like a | police force, so I can see why they just use the police. | | There's probably some solutions along the lines of | different shifts for those with different training with | different load outs, or additional trained personnel in | sets of police, but all of those also have some problems | I can see and don't address officers being dispatched | that are prone to use force because of a prior | altercation that day/week or trauma at some prior date. | zepto wrote: | > Armed law enforcement responding to calls without an | evident need for armed law enforcement is itself a | problem. | | It's fairly obvious that in a country where citizens are | free to be armed, police must be armed too. | kbenson wrote: | I think what's being discussed is not that police should | be unarmed, but that police should not be the first | choice to respond to situations where they currently | often are. | throwawayboise wrote: | Yes, police should not be the welfare patrol. However | they are, because they are out and about and often would | be the nearest public authority to respond to such a | need, and governments don't want to fund the social | programs that they legislate. It's the same reason | teachers are imposed upon to be defacto child-welfare | social workers. | | Police should enforce the law/investigate crimes. | | Teachers should teach. | | If we're going to have social welfare programs, we need | to provide personnel to do that work, not pile it upon | other professions as an unwanted secondary | responsibility. | dragonwriter wrote: | > It's fairly obvious that in a country where citizens | are free to be armed, police must be armed too | | Even granting that for the sake of argument, it is less | obvious that government-public interactions not for the | purposes of arresting criminals or otherwise responding | to or preventing apparent actual or imminent crime need | to involve police. | rhizome wrote: | Firing isn't decertification and the punishment isn't even | that bad. | | > _It 's up to your city leaders to enforce this, and | override the local police union's resistance, if possible._ | | It's only possible in jurisdictions where DAs and/or Mayors | can get elected without an endorsement from law- | enforcement, and look at SF for an example of what police | do when one slips through the cracks. | | By far, most US government is ruled by law enforcement, not | the other way around, and this isn't even touching the | nationwide police rebellion we've been enduring. | Afton wrote: | > It's only possible in jurisdictions where DAs and/or | Mayors can get elected without an endorsement from law- | enforcement, and look at SF for an example of what police | do when one slips through the cracks. | | As someone who doesn't live in SF, what are some of the | examples? This is a good faith question, but I'm not | really sure what I would google to know what you mean. | relaxing wrote: | The 1975 SF police strike, which ended when the police | detonated a bomb at the mayor's house. | kelnos wrote: | Wow, I'd never heard about this, but just read the | Wikipedia blurb[0]. It doesn't appear to be established | fact that the bomb was indeed placed by the police, but | it doesn't seem like it would have been surprising if | they had. | | Pretty shameful that Mayor Alioto override the Supes and | caved to the police's demands rather than calling in the | National Guard and taking the entire striking force into | custody. But I guess people don't always make the best | decisions while their lives are being threatened... | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_De | partmen... | xupybd wrote: | There has to be bathroom breaks right? | asdff wrote: | I would say it should be off for bathroom breaks of | course. The main issue isn't these edge cases, but that | these cops are shutting them off when they are | approaching a person. Its not like they were taking a | poop then the call came in and they had to pull up their | pants and run and didn't have time to flick it on. They | see a situation about to play out where they could end up | looking bad in a court of law so they try and remove a | potential source of evidence that could be used against | them. | kbenson wrote: | From what I've seen, the cameras don't really catch those | angles to give video on that, and even if they did, | that's a problem easily solved through a piece of fabric | around the problematic area (as opposed to on the camera, | which could be accidentally left in place). Beyond that, | requiring sounds from the bathroom be audible is not too | much to ask, IMO. | | If it came down to it being absolutely essential, you | could have one office take the camera off (but leave it | running), and hand it to their partner to point at the | bathroom door as that officer enters and uses the | bathroom, and they put it back on as they exit the | bathroom. | | The whole point of a camera system is to be a reliable | audit trail of interactions that police have been in, for | both their benefit and the public's benefit. Every | exception you allow that lets things happen without the | camera is a problem for an audit, so you try to reduce | those as much as possible. | giantg2 wrote: | "If it came down to it being absolutely essential, you | could have one office take the camera off (but leave it | running), and hand it to their partner to point at the | bathroom door as that officer enters and uses the | bathroom, and they put it back on as they exit the | bathroom." | | This is probably the most foolproof. The fabric idea | wouldn't be a good idea considering many public restrooms | are multi-person. So the concern is with the privacy of | others, not just the officer. | kbenson wrote: | That's a good point. At the same time I'm not sure what | level of privacy people expect in a _public_ bathroom. | Anything you don 't want someone seeing should be done | within a stall. At best I would consider a public | restroom as having increased privacy, but by no means | being private. | | I understand that's probably a hard sell though, as | people have some idea that it's verboten to record in the | open space of a public restroom (it's definitely frowned | upon, but I think police cameras are a good exception to | have, especially if they need to enter the restroom to | perform their jobs because that's where a disturbance | is), so whatever gets more camera use in the end I'm on | board with, from a practical standpoint. | giantg2 wrote: | "At the same time I'm not sure what level of privacy | people expect in a public bathroom." | | They expect that the law should be followed, which | stipulates no recording. Companies have tried for a long | time to have security cameras in bathrooms, but it's not | allowed. Now if they're responding to a call, then maybe | that's an exception. Or they could change the law to | allow recording in the bathroom, but there will probably | be a ton of public pushback. | kbenson wrote: | I'm not saying the law should be ignored. I'm just not | entirely sure why the law exists as it does, or think | that it's ill written to account for certain situations. | A large bathroom with twenty people (or more! bathrooms | at large events or in large airports can be big) in it is | not what I would consider private. | | I think (but could be wrong) what most people actually | care about is that their stall is private (or in the case | of urinals, that someone isn't to the side recording what | they consider a small private wall space area), but since | that's hard to account for and some stalls/urinals | already have poor privacy to the rest of the bathroom, we | got what we have now. | | Honestly, to me it seems like a lot of bother to hide | bits of our body that we should all be a lot less | concerned about shame about in the first place, but I'm | not holding my breath on any change there in the U.S. | smegger001 wrote: | Perhapes we should just require the camera to be turned | on and on their person for them to have the legal | privileges and protections that we grant to law officers. | If they turn it off or leave it behind for example during | a restroom break then they are, under the eyes of the | law, a civilian until it is turned back on. and any | evidence "found" somewhere that they had gone without the | camera while off the clock as it were is either | inadmissible or must have a hire bar to be able to be | used. so on planting drugs on a piss break to just walk | in again with the camera on and "find it" | gnicholas wrote: | > _At the same time I 'm not sure what level of privacy | people expect in a public bathroom. Anything you don't | want someone seeing should be done within a stall._ | | If a man at a baseball game went into the restroom and up | to the trough holding a smartphone that was clearly | recording, he would undoubtedly find trouble. People | expect not to be recorded in the bathroom. | cryptonector wrote: | I would rather there be a way to turn off audio than have | the camera come off its officer. | cryptonector wrote: | It's enough to have the ability to turn off audio. That's | useful for restroom breaks, but also for when officers | are not interacting with the public, since they should | have some privacy for cooler talk (well, maybe they | should, or maybe they shouldn't, but I've not thought | enough about that myself). | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | It shouldn't even have an on/off button. | Leparamour wrote: | Although I agree with you in general, I think this is for | practical reasons. It's not helpful to record 24/7, outside | of police operations with regard to battery capacity and | limits to bandwidth and data storage. | | One could propose a system where recording is triggered | automatically when leaving the patrol car (BLE dongle) and | can only be reset by a centralized authority. | jackson1442 wrote: | Recording 24/7 is a simple problem- they turn off when | placed on a charging dock in the station. With how | microSD is progressing I don't think it's necessary to | disable in a patrol car. Perhaps it could somehow | communicate with the clock in/out system and only be | disabled when the officer is not clocked in to work? | Then, lunch would be off the clock and off the camera. | | I don't see how it's too different from stores recording | their cashiers 24/7. | jimbob45 wrote: | Body cams are a silly idea in the first place. If you're so | distrustful of your police that you feel the need to place | cams on them, then you need to go back to the drawing board | and address the root problem - the trustworthiness of your | police force. | | There's no reason to treat cops as second-class citizens. | There's no evidence to suggest widespread power-abuse, | despite all the FUD from BLM. Are there some bad apples? | Sure, but there are bad apples in every profession and steps | like that only punish good officers and make corrupt officers | more careful when they perform misdeeds. | | You cannot neuter the power of every profession of authority. | All you're going to do is build instinctive and reflexive | mistrust of anyone in authority before they've done anything | wrong, just like the reflexive mistrust BLM has whenever | anyone interacts with an African-American. | chipotle_coyote wrote: | I hear the "bad apple" thing a lot when it comes to | discussions of bad cops, and it's usually in the context | you're using it, e.g., "sure, there are some bad apples, | but you can't hold everyone responsible for them." | | Yet the actual old folk wisdom was "one bad apple can spoil | the barrel," or as Benjamin Franklin rephrased it in _Poor | Richard 's Almanack,_ "the rotten apple spoils his | companion." The entire point is that we _don 't_ get to | just say "it's one bad apple." A barrel with one bad apple | in it quickly becomes a barrel of bad apples. | | The uproar we've seen isn't just about example after | example of police brutality, poor treatment of minorities, | and abuse of power. It's about the overwhelming resistance | among the police to change, to accountability, even to | self-examination. It's about how the reaction, by and | large, to "bad apples" isn't to say "we need to get rid of | that one," but rather to say "we need to protect our own." | | We _don 't_ treat police as second-class citizens; we | entrust them with extraordinary power and latitude. In | return, shouldn't we be holding them to an extraordinarily | high standard? | jackson1442 wrote: | What? A body cam is useful for the same reason that AWS | CloudTrail and other audit logs are useful-- auditing? What | part of policing necessitates that it is done in secret? | | > but there are bad apples in every profession | | A "bad apple" software engineer probably over-reports hours | or is neglectful in their job. A "bad apple" cashier | probably skims off the top of sales. A "bad apple" | executive probably enriches their personal wealth. | | A "bad apple" cop probably results in ruining the lives of | other people through wrongful arrests, excessive force, or | other means. | | Some people simply should be held to a higher standard | because of the responsibilities of their position. When you | can quite literally be the arbiter of life and death at | times, you should be held to a higher standard. | jimbob45 wrote: | I don't agree with your analogy. The post-arrest reports | that the police fill out is closer to the audit log. A | better analogy for SWEs would be keyloggers imo. | | Also, a "bad apple" SWE can be far and away worse than | anything a cop could possibly do. "Bad apple" SWEs are | people like Julian Assange, Kim DotCom, and Sammy Kamkar. | Those people ruin entire _classes_ of lives. | | This "higher standard" argument is a slippery slope. Cops | actually don't have very large responsibilities. Worst | case, they kill 10 or so people before they're brought | down. Consider Mark Begor, CEO of Equifax, who leaked the | identities of millions. Should we force him to install a | key logger on all of his PCs? Should we have him wear a | body cam at work? He's certainly someone from whom | millions would benefit were he to be locked in a dungeon | to work for the rest of his life. | | Of course not. We're supposed to believe in liberty and | the innate good in man, despite whatever FUD BLM would | have you believe. | jdhendrickson wrote: | "Worst case, they kill 10 or so people before they're | brought down." | | Really? This is your argument for why they should not | have to wear cameras? You then drag BLM into this at the | end. | | I have noticed an uptick in older accounts suddenly | commenting more, and more of this divisive language | usually accompanied by a poorly thought out premise that | would never have flown on Hacker News a year or two ago. | | Commentary like this really makes me wonder if the site | is being targeted using inauthentic traffic as covered in | depth by Sophie Zhang. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Zhang_(whistleblower | ) it's pretty interesting. | jimbob45 wrote: | No, that was part of my argument as to why SWEs have the | capacity to abuse their positions of power far worse than | police can. | [deleted] | [deleted] | maybelsyrup wrote: | > Consider Mark Begor, CEO of Equifax, who leaked the | identities of millions. Should we force him to install a | key logger on all of his PCs? Should we have him wear a | body cam at work? | | Lol yes absolutely where do I sign this petition | throwawaysha256 wrote: | >I don't agree with your analogy. The post-arrest reports | that the police fill out is closer to the audit log. A | better analogy for SWEs would be keyloggers imo. | | Which everyone should have enabled for the exact same | reasons: auditing | | All SSH sessions (every character you send) to our qa and | higher environments are recorded and saved for later | auditing. | giantg2 wrote: | In theory, there should be no controversial actions when the | cameras are on, for the simple fact that everyone can | see/hear what happened. The policy can be controversial, but | whether the actions were consistent with policy should be | evident. | xwdv wrote: | Have you never heard of the 5th Ammendment? | heavyset_go wrote: | > _It 's uncanny how the cameras are almost always off | whenever something controversial happens._ | | It's because the body cameras that are bought by police | departments aren't marketed as devices that keep cops honest, | but as devices that protect them from the lying public. | That's why they're sold with features that allow the wearer | to turn them on and off, and with buttons that trigger the | camera to only capture small clips of video. Cops only want | to turn them on when they feel like they might need to prove | something in court later. | apendleton wrote: | There are also potentially privacy considerations... for | example, in jurisdictions where body-cam data is a matter of | public record, should officers be recording while inside | someone's house where that person has a reasonable | expectation of privacy? | | And even assuming the footage isn't automatically public, | what about the evidentiary value against the house's | occupants? Currently, police need a warrant to execute a | search of someone's residence, but there's a "plain view" | exception: if while the officer is in the house anyway | (either because the occupant let them in, or because they | entered due to exigent circumstances like a violent crime in | progress), if they happen to see evidence of a crime in plain | view while there -- a gun, drugs, whatever -- they don't need | a warrant to use that as evidence. If the officer has a | camera on the whole time, that potentially means the officer | could use not just what they happened to see in the moment, | but retroactively whatever can be seen in the footage after | the fact, which likely significantly expands the extent of | plain-view evidence that can be used without a warrant. Some | have asserted that video-recording itself constitutes a | fourth-amendment search if the officer is someplace where the | person has an expectation of privacy, though I don't think | this question has been adjudicated. | | Also, in two-party-consent states, capturing body camera | audio might also require either a warrant or consent for the | capturing of at least some kinds of interactions. | | I think body cams are net-good, but it's more complicated | than it seems at first blush. | r00fus wrote: | At the very least if any situation requires official | capacity, the officer shouldn't have the camera off. The | camera should have features like "toggle off for 5m" or | "turn off persistent but you can't act as LE". | | The situation remains that law enforcement has no real | checks on their own power, and they've moved to restrict or | block such checks on their power. | syshum wrote: | >> in jurisdictions where body-cam data is a matter of | public record | | Where is this mythical land, because many times people have | to go to court to get a court order to release the footage, | i would love to know where body cam footage is public | record. | | >>If the officer has a camera on the whole time, that | potentially means the officer could use not just what they | happened to see in the moment, but retroactively whatever | can be seen in the footage after the fact, which likely | significantly expands the extent of plain-view evidence | that can be used without a warrant. | | While an interesting topic, i dont believe this is in view | of the context. | | Further how many times does this issue really come up in | the course of time. Seems like you are attempting to | highlight edge cases in order to defend police corruption | and their ability to hide their activities under the guise | of public privacy. | | Most of the body cam footage "lost" or "offline" is when | the police are killing people in the plain outdoors in | other public venue's not when they are protecting Grandma's | privacy from the big bad public. | OminousWeapons wrote: | > Further how many times does this issue really come up | in the course of time. | | One possibly common case would be police officers | operating on hospital grounds. Video taping patients who | have not broken any laws is an enormous invasion of | privacy. | jackson1442 wrote: | Maybe there could be an independent review committee that | reviews footage before release ensuring no impertinent | PII is released. This, of course, would only work if the | committee was _truly_ independent (i.e. commissioned for | {x} years with a set budget by a higher level of | government), and potentially would need to be anonymous | in the event of a divisive case. | apendleton wrote: | > Seems like you are attempting to highlight edge cases | in order to defend police corruption and their ability to | hide their activities under the guise of public privacy. | | I'm not sure where you're getting that from what I wrote. | | I'm not saying police shouldn't use bodycams (I | explicitly said I think they're a net good). I think | there might be specific circumstances where not recording | might be appropriate (e.g., if they're inside someone's | house). I think those circumstances, if they exist, | should be determined as a matter of department policy, | and not left to the whims of individual officers, and | that in circumstances other than those, officers should | have to be recording at all times, and there should be | consequences if they don't. Things officers do in public | would pretty obviously be examples of that. | | The only thing I was pushing back on was the notion that | it's universally the case that LEOs should need to have | cameras on for every minute of ever shift. | syshum wrote: | I think that for recording cops effective it needs to be | for their entire shift. Where needed we should address | the privacy and 4th amendment concerns in legal updates. | | Police get away with literally murder, and 4th amendment | has soo many holes in it that police hardly need to look | at their body cam when they can just say "hey I smell | weed" or "did you hear that" to get in... So neither of | them are something we should hold the roll out of body | cams over | | Body Cams have already caught cops planting evidence | because they were not smart enough to know that when they | turn it on it saves the last 3 mins of "off" time... | | Body Cams are needed most urgently. | kelnos wrote: | > _I think there might be specific circumstances where | not recording might be appropriate (e.g., if they 're | inside someone's house)._ | | On the other hand, though, I think being inside someone's | house is when having a recording is the most critical. | Without video recordings, it's just the officer's word | against the defendant's, and courts will more often | believe the officer's version of events. | | Out in public, it's possible -- and in some places, | likely -- that a concerned passerby would be recording | what's going on, reducing the value of & need for the | police body-cam video. | kelnos wrote: | Right, but also consider that what you're describing is a | matter of law, and we're already talking about changing law | (to require body cameras to be always-on), so why not | change the other stuff too? | | Change the "plain view" exception to only apply to stuff | the officer notices while physically there; if they see it | in footage later, it's not admissible in court, and not | grounds for a search warrant. Change the recording-consent | laws to not apply to police body cameras. | | And regarding privacy, have retention policies: if there's | no legal hold on some body cam footage (part of an active | investigation or court proceeding, etc.), it gets deleted | after 90 days (or whatever time period sounds reasonable). | That way we don't have recordings of people's private | residences living in storage indefinitely. | dragonwriter wrote: | > for example, in jurisdictions where body-cam data is a | matter of public record, should officers be recording while | inside someone's house where that person has a reasonable | expectation of privacy? | | Public records laws already generally anticipate that | public records will frequently contain sensitive, protected | data and have general processes (involving redaction or | denial of unprivileged general public access, depending on | the circumstances) for handling public records to which | that applies (source: spent a couple decades in government | dealing with public records containing PHI, other PII, and | other legally restricted-access information.) | tomohawk wrote: | That hasn't stopped government officials from unmasking | the identities of people in intercepts for political | purposes. | | For example, Tucker Carlson, Gen. Flynn, and others. | | It's better not to have the record around where politicos | can be tempted to abuse it. | sudosysgen wrote: | The government doesn't need bodycams to spy on you. | CamperBob2 wrote: | No, there are no "privacy considerations" to body camera | footage. Those only into play when the footage is made | public. When you cite "privacy," you're letting the police | dictate the terms of the discussion. | | The footage _must_ be recorded and retained, with the | decision to edit and /or release it left up to courts or | other independent authorities. | | As for two-party laws, those have to go. They don't have a | place in a society where the people need the ability to | hold police and other officials accountable. If the police | are doing nothing wrong, they have nothing to fear, right? | Isn't that what they tell us? | apendleton wrote: | The party in question that might object is the person | being recorded, not the officer. | ISO-morphism wrote: | Nit: a queue is a line waiting for something (stuck in the | queue), a cue is a signal to perform some action (that's my | cue) | Vaslo wrote: | Eh not a nit - I didn't understand it until your context was | added | jaywalk wrote: | It's no wonder why the cops love it. Although the actual | usefulness is questionable at best (much like the dogs) | ShotSpotter will cook up "evidence" on command to help with the | investigation (much like the dogs). | slumdev wrote: | Any lawyers in the house who could comment on their refusal to | test his hands? | | Can they refuse to run a test because they're afraid it might | produce exculpatory evidence? | giantg2 wrote: | Not a lawyer, but in my experience they don't need to do any | tests. They usually have a policy that requires them to make | a "thorough" investigation. Nobody holds them to that. For | example, a trooper knew there were third party witnesses to a | crime and did not seek them out. Granted, that trooper also | withheld actual exculpatory evidence. Either way, nothing | happened, because who watches the watchers? | tjfl wrote: | IANAL, but curious and searched. | | > A number of techniques designed to detect gunshot residues | (GSR) on the hands of a suspect or victim have been | developed. These techniques range from the now-discredited | paraffin test to the more modern techniques which use | instrumental analysis or scanning electron microscopy. The | limitations of all GSR techniques are that the residues can | be removed by rubbing or washing the hands and usually must | be collected soon after the firearm is fired, yet even valid | GSR tests are not conclusive. | | https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual- | library/abstracts/forensic... | giantg2 wrote: | Very few forensic techniques are conclusive for a case. | They are usually conclusive as in _the test_ was either | positive or negative. Then the forensic expert has to give | testimony as to what it means. Just look at the medical | experts in the Chauvin trial. It 's just like many news | articles today - the facts don't lie, but people can | misapply them to say different things. | jonhohle wrote: | Not being in or having interactions with the criminal justice | system, but having been involved in _many_ technology post- | mortems, why wouldn't you want to collect exculpatory | evidence? Without it, and in the best case an innocent | individual goes free, but with a cloud of uncertainty. In the | worst case an innocent individual is convicted of a crime and | the perpetrator goes without consequence. | | If LEOs and prosecutors are incentivized based on raw arrest | or conviction counts, then the consequence for being wrong | should be astronomical (say, the sentence of the wrongfully | convicted times a >= 1x multiplier). | sokoloff wrote: | If you start from a premise that law enforcement is | searching for the truth above all else, your conclusions | make sense. | giantg2 wrote: | "... why wouldn't you want to collect exculpatory | evidence?" | | In my experience, it's mostly that they are lazy, | incompetent, and/or have their mind made up. In some cases, | it has to do with costs (eg they aren't going to DNA test a | petty theft crime scene). | | Contrary to TV, forensics are actually used very rarely in | the criminal justice system. Most of the ones that are used | are fingerprints and drug tests. | robbedpeter wrote: | The Supreme Court ruled that 5th amendment protects you from | incriminating yourself even if you're innocent, and in some | states that extends to investigations of your body. | | Never talking to or cooperating with police, unless legally | required as advised by your lawyer, is what's known in legal | circles as "smart." | anigbrowl wrote: | That's not applicable here, because the defendant was | asking police to timely collect additional evidence for its | exculpatory potential. | p_j_w wrote: | The fact that they can get away with refusing to collect | evidence like that is absolutely infuriating. | squarefoot wrote: | > No technology will work if the people using it is corrupt. | | Not if the people above them are not. Sadly, the people above | them _need_ corrupt police because corrupt police is easier to | control than the good one, and their members can also turn | themselves into private police serving the same politicians who | saved their asses. It 's a "do ut des" scenario in which | everyone has something to gain, except common people. | dilap wrote: | Yeah, I had my (completely clean) car searched because "the dog | signaled". OK, sure. | | It would be more honest and to just say cops have the right to | search you at will. | tehwebguy wrote: | It's true, but it's also true that it's important for people | to say "no" and assert their rights. Granting permission to | search or willingly waiting for the K9 (assuming it's not | already on the scene) eliminates a lot of recourse that | people would otherwise have access to in the courts. | dghlsakjg wrote: | What they should be required to do is keep records on a dog's | record of false positives. | | If a dog fails to perform better than 95% I see no reason to | use that as probable cause. | | Better yet, let's just get rid of pretext stops. Almost all | traffic stops could be dealt with by the officer mailing a | ticket. Safer for cops, safer for the public, but a lot | harder to go fishing for felonies | giantg2 wrote: | They treat K9s almost like officers (eg if you injure or | kill one it will be a felony, likely similar to assaulting | an officer, but varies by state). They should also then | treat them like officers and keep Giglio records (not that | they are good at that for human officers...). | anigbrowl wrote: | Unless you're a cop, in which it's usually just a minor | disciplinary infraction. | p_j_w wrote: | The Supreme Court ruled, unanimously, that this sort of | thing isn't required: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Harris | | It's going to take actual legislation to get this fixed, | which is not something I think we have any reason to be | optimistic about. | brianwawok wrote: | > It would be more honest and to just say cops have the right | to search you at will. | | Except they explicitly do NOT have that power. They found a | "trick" to pretend like they are staying within the law, | while really not. | lovegoblin wrote: | Exactly. Hence | | > It would be more honest | RHSeeger wrote: | They don't have the "right" to, they have the "ability to | do so without repercussions". | mplewis wrote: | Why is ShotSpotter using "AI" to analyze this? It's time-based | triangulation of a loud noise. | | It must be nice to make a living on a grift like this. | gmueckl wrote: | I m not convinced that simple triangulation works in a city | environment. Sound reflected off of buildings can mess things | up good. I can think of several ways in which a later | reflection can be louder than the initial sound. | bob1029 wrote: | Triangluation works in these cases if you apply some DSP | tricks (marketed in this case as AI). | | Multipath interference can be mitigated to a large extent | with multiple listening devices calibrated against a known | acoustic impulse - i.e. intentionally firing something like a | gun at a precise time & location known to the system | beforehand. | throwaway0a5e wrote: | Because gunshots are rare and if you're just triangulating loud | noise you're gonna be overwhelmed by false positives. Even if | you do basic filtration to try and tease out the sound of a | gunshot vs everything else you're still gonna get overwhelmed | by false positives. | dylan604 wrote: | I don't know enough about the procedures, but would citizens | calling 911 to report gun shots help coroborate and help weed | out false positives? | tdeck wrote: | Many citizens can't tell the difference between gunshots | and other explosive sounds like fireworks. | [deleted] | tolbish wrote: | If ShotSpotter can't either then it effectively useless. | sneak wrote: | It's not useless, sometimes it can be used to fuel a | prosecution against an innocent person who happens to be | a racial minority. | | Police locking up black people in America is the reason | police in America were created. | gunapologist99 wrote: | > Police locking up black people in America is the reason | police in America were created. | | Formal policing in America has a long and sometimes | infamous history, but it definitely did not begin with | "locking up black people"; it varied based on the locale. | | For example, in NYC, it goes back to the Tammany Hall | days and was notoriously corrupt. | | In the west (where there were very few black people, and | those that were there were free), police forces began | with various marshals and sheriffs who were hired, | typically by the merchants, to tame the wild western | towns. | | According to Time, "The first publicly funded, organized | police force with officers on duty full-time was created | in Boston in 1838." | | https://time.com/4779112/police-history-origins/ | mplewis wrote: | The Boston police were started to defend the rights of | property owners, not citizens. | | In the South, post-Civil War, police used gold star | badges because they were adapted from the gold star | badges used by slave patrols. | | You should learn more about the history of policing in | America: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the- | history-of-america... | dylan604 wrote: | Maybe it gets harder around june/july/new years, but the | rest of the year has very little firework activity. | timbargo wrote: | I live in Chicago. We have fireworks year round, some | neighborhoods more often than others. Usually you will | hear fireworks far more frequently than you hear | gunshots. | panopticon wrote: | I think that depends on the city/neighborhood. We heard | fireworks pretty regularly throughout the year when we | lived in San Jose. And they became more frequent after | the Flyod protests. | | On the flip side, we heard far more gunshots than | fireworks when we lived in Kansas City. | [deleted] | Anechoic wrote: | It's presumably some sort of machine learning to distinguish | gunshots from firecrackers, backfires and other kinds of | impulsive sounds one would find in a city. It just does not | appear to work well. | imroot wrote: | Cincy PD disables alerts for ShotSpotter on the 4th of July | and disables it during baseball/football games downtown | because the pyro from the games causes false alarms. | zozin wrote: | It's just marketing speak. If your tech product doesn't use AI, | machine learning or have an algorithm then it won't look as | bright and shiny to customers. | steve76 wrote: | Correction: | | The lawful arrest of George Floyd. Jury was biased. Arsonists and | a criminal mob influenced the judge. | | The lawful encounter with Adam Toledo. | | Criminals everywhere: change your ways or be destroyed. | garyfirestorm wrote: | I don't understand how they get to just walk away without any | consequences. | | prosecutor1: sir we got evidence that defendant1 was behind the | shooting | | defendant1: sir I was miles away from this area - let's verify | the evidence | | prosecutor1: you know what, never mind - poker face | | Court: poker face | | Defendant1: poker face | | >"Rather than defend the evidence, [prosecutors] just ran away | from it," he said. | LatteLazy wrote: | Worse: this is one of the most discriminatory issues in the | criminal justice system. The prosecutor can and will use that | "evidence" unless and until the defence challenges it. But poor | people with overworked lawyers don't have the time to challenge | anything so they go down based on BS. | | The same thing happens with Stingrays apparently: as soon as | someone asks where the lead came from for the arrest, its case | dropped. But if you can't afford a lawyer with time to chase | down every detail you go to jail on illegal evidence. | dlgeek wrote: | Ouch: | | > Over the years, ShotSpotter's claims about its accuracy have | increased, from 80 percent accurate to 90 percent accurate to 97 | percent accurate. According to Greene, those numbers aren't | actually calculated by engineers, though. | | > "Our guarantee was put together by our sales and marketing | department, not our engineers," Greene told a San Francisco court | in 2017. "We need to give them [customers] a number ... We have | to tell them something. ... It's not perfect. The dot on the map | is simply a starting point." | cryptonector wrote: | This is all devastating. These kinds of devices should use a a | cryptographic tramper-evident log, and those logs should be | available to the public in real time for archival purposes. | That's the only way to avoid tampering. The same should be used | for things like, e.g., rolls of who voted at every precinct. | ghostly_s wrote: | In fact, 89% of ShotSpotter deployments turn up no evidence of | gun-related crime: [1] | | 1. https://endpolicesurveillance.com/ | adolph wrote: | > 89% of ShotSpotter deployments turn up no evidence of gun- | related crime | | If ShotSpotter is limited to registering the the sound of | gunshots, then it is limited to firearm-discharge-related | crime which is a subset of gun-related crime. | meowface wrote: | That site says 14% of alerts result in a case report being | filed and 10% result in a gun-related case report. But even a | 10% alert -> case report rate is better than I would've | expected for a big city. That still seems like it'd be | extremely useful, even if it means some wasted man hours. | | And that's case reports - not necessarily detection true | positives. If someone fires a gun at the sky and picks up the | shell casings and drives away, with no witnesses or cameras | and an inconclusive/indiscernible audio recording, police | likely won't be able to file a report. | | Also, I'm guessing there are some confidence indicators for | each alert: those case report rates probably don't capture | the full story even when accounting for hypothetical | inconclusive true positives. Police are likely (and should | be) obligated to investigate every detection, including every | detection rated as low-confidence. | | Plus that's just for Chicago. I doubt they actually achieve | their claimed 97% accuracy anywhere, but it could be higher | in other areas. Especially areas where loud noises are less | common. | | The main issue seems to be when it's used as evidence. I | think it shouldn't ever be admissible as evidence of | anything. And to mitigate some of the other issues that site | raises, it'd be nice if there were some kind of "no fishing | expeditions" law, where police responding to a gunfire alert | must exclusively look for evidence of a fired gun in that | vicinity and not use it as an excuse to scavenge for low- | hanging fruit by harassing / arresting people in the area for | unrelated matters. | giantg2 wrote: | "That still seems like it'd be extremely useful, even if it | means some wasted man hours." | | I think the least wasteful approach would be to build | rapport with the community and rely on their reports. | Probably not an easy thing, but the most valuable things | rarely are. | whimsicalism wrote: | Still doesn't stop the phenomena of everyone thinking | "oh, someone else will call." | | Shotspotter is a very useful tool IMO. | pessimizer wrote: | > the phenomena of everyone thinking "oh, someone else | will call." | | This generally doesn't happen. It originated as a slander | against the people who lived around where Kitty Genovese | was killed, as an after-the-fact excuse for the lack of | police response. | | > While there was no question that the attack occurred, | and that some neighbors ignored cries for help, the | portrayal of 38 witnesses as fully aware and unresponsive | was erroneous. The article grossly exaggerated the number | of witnesses and what they had perceived. None saw the | attack in its entirety. Only a few had glimpsed parts of | it, or recognized the cries for help. Many thought they | had heard lovers or drunks quarreling. There were two | attacks, not three. And afterward, two people did call | the police. A 70-year-old woman ventured out and cradled | the dying victim in her arms until they arrived. Ms. | Genovese died on the way to a hospital. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese#Ac | cur... | whimsicalism wrote: | There's evidence around how the majority of gunshots in | most cities are not followed by 911 calls. | | For instance, the murder of Seth Rich in my home city | (ignore the stupid conspiracy theories) was not followed | by a call but was found by shotspotter which is how it | was responded to. | bpodgursky wrote: | I'm not sure why this is an important stat. Isn't it good if | there aren't gun crimes happening in a lot of places? | Cycl0ps wrote: | Check the link. What it's saying is that most times the | police receive a notice of a gunshot, it's a false | positive. In Chicago this leads to 60 dead-end responses | each day. Very few systems are worth that trouble | handmodel wrote: | I 100% dont think it should be used as evidence but this | seems like a decent rate for responding. There's 12,000 | total officers in Chicago. Even if only 3,000 are on duty | at any time that's not a huge inconvenience if there are | still even dozens of cases a year you get to the scene 5 | minutes before you would otherwise. | | If you track the number of calls to 911 that are "dead- | ends" because there are no arrests I'm sure it would be | high too. | | It also doesnt say the error rate for when the police | aren't called. If criminals know that if they shoot a gun | there is a 50% chance a police car will drive through 5 | minutes later - wouldn't that deter you? | sodality2 wrote: | Deployments I assume means police response, not deploying | the system. | GhostVII wrote: | Having an 11% success rate seems pretty impressive to me. | Much better than the rate of false panic alarms, for example. | And I'm sure a lot of those ShotSpotter alerts were accurate, | but the police didn't get there soon enough. | giantg2 wrote: | It shouldn't have anything to do with getting there soon | enough. If they find shell casings, victims, or other | evidence that a crime occurred (usually even discharging a | firearm in a major city is considered a crime with very | limited defenses), then they should still be collecting | evidence and logging a report. Now, they may not be doing | that because they don't want to have high crime numbers | that are unsolved, or even dragging down the reputation of | the safer areas (I've heard of officers doing this). | GhostVII wrote: | I was thinking of cases where someone fires a few shots | and then everyone runs off - odds are the shell casings | aren't going to be seen unless they do a careful sweep of | the area, and the victims all left pretty quickly. No | idea how often that actually happens though. | handmodel wrote: | I think for the purposes of sending a car over to drive | through a street its pretty good. | | The article discusses instances where it is used in trial | and for that it is obviously pretty weak - surprised it can | be used at all. | BoorishBears wrote: | That's the ouch? Not literally rewriting history to create | evidence for a murder trial? | | > But after the 11:46 p.m. alert came in, a ShotSpotter analyst | manually overrode the algorithms and "reclassified" the sound | as a gunshot. Then, months later and after "post-processing," | another ShotSpotter analyst changed the alert's coordinates to | a location on South Stony Island Drive near where Williams' car | was seen on camera. | | > Motherboard's review of court documents from the Williams | case and other trials in Chicago and New York State, including | testimony from ShotSpotter's favored expert witness, suggests | that the company's analysts frequently modify alerts at the | request of police departments--some of which appear to be | grasping for evidence that supports their narrative of events. | | Marketing games are absolutely nothing compared to this. | klyrs wrote: | This sounds suspiciously like evidence tampering. If only the | legal system would be so dogged in pursuit of justice for the | cops & analysts involved in this conspiracy. | pjungwir wrote: | Any time I see "accuracy" reported as a single number, I assume | it's B.S. and "for marketing purposes only". If you're serious, | give me the precision and recall. | the_snooze wrote: | >If you're serious, give me the precision and recall. | | The thing is decision-makers have no idea (and no care to | know) what those are. | wcerfgba wrote: | Maybe these people shouldn't be decision-makers then. We | need both greater transparency in decision-making | processes, and greater education amongst the population | about statistics, causal inference, and the scientific | method. In order for the citizenry to hold decision-makers | to account and obtain a higher standard we need: | | 1. Citizens to have the time and motivation to seek out and | examine primary evidence. | | 2. Citizens to have the skills to understand and critique | that evidence. | | 3. Robust mechanisms to allow citizens to replace people in | power. | kube-system wrote: | This is an inherent problem with the specialization of | labor. Those who run police departments have more | relevant specializations to their job role than | information science. This isn't a problem with statistics | or science in particular -- it's an issue with every | specialization. This is only going to get worse as | popular opinion of the role of higher education is | starting to shift from a more liberal-arts focus to a | job-placement focus. | anigbrowl wrote: | Correct and that's unlikely to change, but it should be | grounds to throw out the prosecution. Yes, this will make | it harder to convict real criminals. Too bad. | abstrakraft wrote: | I've never understood why ML folks insist on using precision, | which depends on the base rate. Why do they not use | probability of false alarm as in traditional detection | theory? | alexilliamson wrote: | It doesn't really depend on the base rate though. The idea | is that a high precision model will have all the targets at | one end of the distribution, regardless of base rate. | [deleted] | drc500free wrote: | Precision is an attribute of the deployed system. The same | tech in an affluent suburb will have different precision | deployed in an inner city. Ran into this exact problem in | biometrics, where NIST publishes tech error rates like FNMR | and FMR, and system owners don't even know precision is a | thing. They expect the vendor to tell them if it will work, | when it depends how many true and false events you throw at | the system. | hartator wrote: | > Police said ShotSpotter, a surveillance system that uses hidden | microphone sensors to detect the sound and location of gunshots. | | Wait, what? | oehpr wrote: | This is tough. Pretty clearly what's happening here is shot | spotter is producing a probability distribution about the places | where a shot may have been fired, but they're not showing that | information, they're showing a point. That's broken. | | It's a shame because setting up some microphones around the city | to detect a firearm discharge seems like a great idea. The | problem is people are overselling what it is doing. | | Something that jumps out at me in the article is this: | Paul Greene, ShotSpotter's expert witness and an employee of the | company, testified at Simmons' trial that "subsequently he was | asked by the Rochester Police Department to essentially | search and see if there were more shots fired than | ShotSpotter picked up," according to a civil lawsuit | Simmons has filed against the city and the company. Greene found | a fifth shot, despite there being no physical evidence at the | scene that Simmons had fired. ... | | Like, what shotspotter is doing is attempting to resolve the | origin of a sound wave in a city. The shockwave from a gun blast | must reverberate across buildings all over the place, more than | likely you're getting reflected waves rather than waves from the | source. You're going to get echos and reverb and it's going to be | messy and you're going to be imprecise. | | Would shotspotter's AI misclassify noises? Yah. Of course. If | it's like any other classifier it's likely listing out a list of | probabilities of what something is and, for the sake of | simplicity, just saying it's the highest probability output. It's | just a filtering step. If you know a gunshot occurred, you update | your priors. | | Should shotspotter be able to detect the number of gunshots | exactly? Maybe? How to differentiate between echos and original? | I'm not shocked it can detect the wrong number of shots. | | Since it misclassifies noises, isn't exactly sure of the origin, | and can read echos as additional shots, is it useless? No. | slumdev wrote: | This is an unreliable system which police and prosecutors | misrepresent as reliable. | | It might not be useless in the strictest sense of the word, but | it ought to be taken away from them. | Frondo wrote: | This is the issue: it's unreliable, and its results presented | as a matter of fact. | | This is also the latest I've heard of, in a long line of the | criminal justice system presenting what's often closer to | fiction as an indisputable fact of someone's guilt. One of | the cases that made me incredibly angry was the junk arson | science surrounding the conviction and execution of Cameron | Todd Willingham in Texas in 2004: | | https://innocenceproject.org/cameron-todd-willingham- | wrongfu... | | But I also think of how unreliable eyewitness testimony is, | and yet people's recollections of events (when we know, and | have known for so long, that memory is plastic!), sometimes | years later, are treated as fact: | | https://www.ncsc.org/trends/monthly-trends- | articles/2017/the.... | | I don't know how to solve this, since the "proven" part of | "innocent until proven guilty" seems like it's built on a | house of cards, and the only people with a direct incentive | to change it are suspects (i.e. the people that the criminal | justice system has already decided could've done it, and how | can you trust a criminal's motivations? _eye roll_ ) | meowface wrote: | Restrict its use to the original intention: detecting | potential events police might want to immediately respond to. | It (and any other gunfire locator) seems like it'd probably | be an extremely useful and publicly beneficial technology | even if it had a low true positive rate. | | The problem is allowing it to be used as evidence in criminal | cases. That's the part that should be taken away. | tomschlick wrote: | This exactly. I see Shotspotter and tech like facial | recognition / license plate readers as the same. Its a | lead, a clue for detectives to follow up on and validate / | verify. It shouldn't be evidence on its own. Just a source | that's slightly more reliable than a human witness. | meowface wrote: | The arguments for facial recognition and license plate | readers are much more complex. In the case of a gunfire | detector, you're specifically looking for (supposed) | activity that indicates the most serious possible crime | might have occurred seconds ago. | | Facial recognition and license plate readers are used to | automatically track individual humans wherever they go so | that they can be quickly arrested if they're on a to- | arrest list. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about that, | even if it's all taking place in public, open areas, but | it's a totally different category from just knowing when | and where a gun may have been fired. It's real-time crime | detection vs. alleged criminal detection. | tomschlick wrote: | Thats very true. I also have reservations around facial | recognition / ALPR systems if they are saving data of | people who are not currently "flagged" related to a | crime. I can see the usefulness to find stolen cars, or | track down murder suspects but only after they are | entered as a suspect. There shouldn't be a historical | database of previous movements. There should also be | states/federal guidelines around who can be entered. | avs733 wrote: | > shot spotter is producing a probability distribution about | the places where a shot may have been fired, but they're not | showing that information, they're showing a point. That's | broken. | | >This is an unreliable system which police and prosecutors | misrepresent as reliable. | | I would argue in american policing, that broken is the point. | People (cops, judges, juries, the public) don't engage with | anything criminal justice related as probabilistic. If they | showed the probabilities, they wouldn't have a product | specifically because it would not be able presented as | reliable. | | It's product market fit, like the parallel citizen thread, | that serves malicious and anti-social goals. But it is | profitable. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | It's the same deal with breathalyzers, which don't measure | blood alcohol and cannot estimate it to the levels of | precision the manufacturers want everyone to believe. | giantg2 wrote: | The "evidence" can't be reexamined either. The good | states require a blood test. At least it's more accurate | and can be examined by the defense. | avs733 wrote: | and a pattern of withdrawing the evidence when the | results are challenged so as to avoid setting precedent. | formerly_proven wrote: | This seems to be intentional: | | > Rather than defend ShotSpotter's technology and its | employees' actions in a Frye hearing, the prosecutors | withdrew all ShotSpotter evidence against Williams. | | Ducking the test and withdrawing the evidence means | prosecutors can continue to claim that this stuff hasn't been | deemed unreliable by experts. | slumdev wrote: | A quirk of our legal system that allows dishonest people to | continue with impunity. | avs733 wrote: | which courts could easily fix...but don't. | modriano wrote: | Yeah, it's a really useful tool. There are a lot of gunshots in | Chicago (last year there were over 4000 incidents (in Chicago) | where someone was shot, and there are far more gunshots where | no one is hit), and in many of those shootings, no one calls | 911. If someone is hit and rendered unable to call 911 or get | help, if no one calls 911, that shooting victims is likely to | become a homicide victim. ShotSpotter gets someone to check the | area out, and it has saved a number of people from bleeding | out. | | I don't think it should be used as evidence of the location of | a shooting (often shootings are only discovered when the victim | shows up at a hospital), as locations are triangulated based on | the time different sensors detect a gunshot and the distance | sound travels is impacted by building geometry and materials. | But it's a very useful tool that saves lives. | | Regarding the locations of ShotSpotter coverage, as the pricing | model is proportional to area covered (there's a physical | network that needs to be maintained and contacts with owners of | buildings with sensors that need to be paid), so sensors are | put in the areas with lots of shootings. If you want to know | why there is such extreme racial homogeneity in the most | violent, least well resourced parts of Chicago, I highly | recommend the book "The Color of Law" [0] on redlining. | | [0] https://www.epi.org/publication/the-color-of-law-a- | forgotten... | _trampeltier wrote: | Maybe the US should try to sell less weapons .. | sneak wrote: | Being unarmed in the current environment is not advisable. | giantg2 wrote: | "... and in many of those shootings, no one calls 911." | | It's sad that our society (can we really call it that?) has | come to this - relying more on a piece of technology because | you can't depend on your fellow citizens. | mrkurt wrote: | There's no point in calling the police when you hear a | gunshot anywhere near Chicago. For one, you probably heard | fireworks. For another, calling them doesn't accomplish | anything. What are they even supposed to do about random | gun shots? | giantg2 wrote: | I'm not asking about shots off in the distance. With the | population densities of cities, people should be close | enough to know. | | Discharging a firearm is a crime in most cities, with | limited defenses. They should be collecting evidence like | shell casings and investigating if another crime was | committed (check for victims). If you have people | illegally shooting firearms, there's a decent chance they | arent legally allowed to own them either. Catching these | people for this crime, could prevent others. | loteck wrote: | Do you have any citations for your claims about the Chicago | system being responsible for saving a number of people? I'm | looking for reading on that topic. Thanks ahead of time. | modriano wrote: | None that are public (that I'm aware of), but it's just a | matter of time. We just got ShotSpotter alerts put up on | the Chicago data portal. | | But to make it less difficult to believe, I'll point you | too LEMART training [1], an emergency first aid course that | many patrol officers elect to take, and that many officers | carry a first aid kit [2]. Considering ShotSpotter alerts | officers (many of which are capable of administering | emergency first aid) to shootings (many of which have no | corresponding 911 call for service), it's not too hard to | accept the weak claim that a nonzero number of lives have | been saved. I won't speculate on the number as I haven't | done a rigorous analysis, but I know of a lot of shootings | where the responding officer was notified by ShotSpotter, | administered first aid (normally a tourniquet), and the | victim survived. | | Edit: just found a public number for the number of officers | who have received LEMART training. Over 6000 officers as of | 1/21/2020 [3]. For reference, there are about 13k sworn CPD | officers. | | [0] https://data.cityofchicago.org/Public-Safety/Violence- | Reduct... | | [1] https://www.chicagocopa.org/wp- | content/uploads/2018/04/Polic... | | [2] https://directives.crimeisdown.com/diff/efaff1a7e94a8ad | 642c7... | | [3] https://twitter.com/chicago_police/status/1219747858469 | 00326... | cryptonector wrote: | Overselling + altering reports after the fact to fit a | prosecution's preferred theory of the events. | BoorishBears wrote: | How is this tough?! | | The system detected a loud noise as fireworks... that should be | the end of it! | | Let the cards fall where they may, if cops go out they go out, | they go out, otherwise that's that. | | You don't get to go back days later and reclassify it as a | gunshot based on ambiguity inherent to your product, and you | don't get to go back and move the origin. | | This is not tough at all, it literally should work exactly like | it works today, and no one is allowed to change the initial | call manually. | | After all, who is helped by retroactively marking it as a | gunshot but a DA? | | - | | If the concern is building up statistics or something, | ShotSpotter is still recording that it heard a sound. Nothing | is stopping an _out of band_ note that says "we believe this | recording was tied to so and so incident at so and so location" | | The key difference though is that ShotSpotter is no long | claiming to have recorded that incident directly. Which matters | when people's freedom is at stake. | loteck wrote: | _It 's a shame because setting up some microphones around the | city to detect a firearm discharge seems like a great idea._ | | It's an idea, yes, but a *great* idea? There are so many | technical, social and civil rights issues wrapped up in this | idea on its face, I think its performance history should be | part of whether it gets to enjoy the label of being a "great | idea." | | _Since it misclassifies noises, isn 't exactly sure of the | origin, and can read echos as additional shots, is it useless?_ | | Furthermore, since it can and does record human voices | speaking, and creates permanent records into the private hands | of a for-profit company that is allowed to sell that data to | 3rd parties, does it actually cross a line from being useless | to being harmful? It might. | oehpr wrote: | Right... but I don't classify its performance of "saying 5 | gunshots when their was 4" a failure. | | If it can say "I heard a gunshot, sounded like it came from | around here." and a gunshot occurred somewhere around there, | with only a few false positives. That's fantastic. In my | view, that's "great". | | It's just not iron clad evidence, prosecutors are overstating | its statistical power. That needs to be checked. | | _Furthermore, since it can and does record human voices | speaking, and creates permanent records into the private | hands of a for-profit company that is allowed to sell that | data to 3rd parties, does it actually cross a line from being | useless to being harmful? It might._ | | Yah absolutely. But the thing is gunshots are pretty loud | noises compared to human speech. There's no reason to think a | microphone needs to be sensitive enough to capture human | speech to capture a gunshot, nor placed in a location that is | well suited for capturing human speech, nor would a place | that IS well suited for capturing human speech a good | location for capturing gunshots. | | If I was placing a microphone to capture the sound of | gunshots, I'd be putting it on the tops of streetlights, | telephone polls, and the corners of buildings. You're not | going to be hearing people from there. | | So if we see that behavior of ShotSpotter sticking | microphones in inappropriate places for public surveillance | purposes, then I think they should be taken to task for it. | [deleted] | josefx wrote: | > Right... but I don't classify its performance of "saying | 5 gunshots when their was 4" a failure. | | Where there four? The part of the recording containing the | fifth shot disappeared, there is no way to reexamine it as | there where no steps taken to protect the original data | against tampering. If your method is so bad that no one | else can reproduce your results and the data you base your | results on just keeps changing and disappearing to suit the | expected result then it has the scientific rigor of a | fortune teller. | [deleted] | Imnimo wrote: | I think the problem isn't the technology or the idea, it's the | business model and the associated incentives. ShotSpotter's | customers are the police, and the objective of police is to | secure convictions, so ShotSpotter is incentivized to help them | do that, not to produce true and accurate predictions. | Exonerating a defendant isn't going to win them more business. | jfrankamp wrote: | Right. Shotspotter or the generic equiv should be purchased | by the city, not the police. The data (raw and interpreted) | should be managed in the public, as its a public interest to | know about firearms (including the police's) being | discharged. | dragonwriter wrote: | > Shotspotter or the generic equiv should be purchased by | the city, not the police. | | Generally, the police are part of the city, and the sole | and deliberately centralized city agency with a mandate | that makes something like ShotSpotter relevant. | | So, of course, if it is bought "by the city", it is through | and under control of the police department. | jfrankamp wrote: | I'm arguing though that due to the conflict of interest, | it should be at least one level up IRT purchasing, access | to interpretive/raw data, and decision making on which of | that data they want to share etc. Remove funding and | responsibility from the police to run this system/vendor, | and move it into the "office of public data | accountability" e.g. which can serve its data equally to | the public, watchdog groups and the police. | spywaregorilla wrote: | > the objective of police is to secure convictions | | I mean... that's the problem point it would seem | javajosh wrote: | Why didn't the judge find the prosecution in contempt of court? | And why didn't this trigger an internal investigation inside the | Chicago PD? Modifying evidence to fit a crime is itself a crime, | withdrawn or not, and heads should be rolling right now. | sneak wrote: | The courts and the prosecutors and the police are all on the | same team. | | The adversarial, truth-seeking system you believe that this is | is a fiction. It's a pipeline for money, nothing more. | bsanr wrote: | >Motherboard recently obtained data demonstrating the stark | racial disparity in how Chicago has deployed ShotSpotter. The | sensors have been placed almost exclusively in predominantly | Black and brown communities, while the white enclaves in the | north and northwest of the city have no sensors at all, despite | Chicago police data that shows gun crime is spread throughout the | city. | | But I thought there was nothing racially-biased about American | policing. | timy2shoes wrote: | > But after the 11:46 p.m. alert came in, a ShotSpotter analyst | manually overrode the algorithms and "reclassified" the sound as | a gunshot. Then, months later and after "post-processing," | another ShotSpotter analyst changed the alert's coordinates to a | location on South Stony Island Drive near where Williams' car was | seen on camera. | | That's falsification of evidence. Will there be any consequences? | Who watches the watchmen? | jaywalk wrote: | You say falsification of evidence, they say manual review by an | "expert" to correct errors from the automated process. | stronglikedan wrote: | > manual review by an "expert" | | Sounds like that should be required before the results of | automated processes can be used as evidence. | jaywalk wrote: | I'm sure it is, but the point here is that the manual | review appears to be "aided" by the police "suggesting" | where they believe the sound came from. And then, wow, | wouldn't you know it! The manual review agrees. Case | closed. | [deleted] | bluejekyll wrote: | Reclassifying the type of sound is possibly reasonable. | Changing the coordinates seems like falsification of | evidence. Later in the article it mentions adding a fifth | shot in a different event. | | If shotspotter wants to be relied on for evidence, allowing | technicians to go back and modify data seems like a recipe to | quickly eliminate its use in cities and destroy its market | share. Adding notes about manual review after the fact would | be the only acceptable thing, but the originals should never | be modified/deleted. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | Sorry, but I'm an expert shooter. I can reasonably identify | the round and sometimes the gun on the range next to me - I | would say I have an excellently tuned ear for these | things... | | And not a chance I could do that based on microphone | playback between firework and gunshot with some random mic | in a city. 1/2 the "trick" is knowing the location, at my | range I know the echo of a 12ga vs a 45ACP, the crack | difference in a 223 or a 6.5prc, if I went to some random | place and you shot one random shot, it would be | ridiculously less accurate. | | Shotspotter seems like a ton of bullshit to me after | reading this article including... | | > Both the company and the Rochester Police Department | "lost, deleted and/or destroyed the spool and/or other | information containing sounds pertaining to the officer- | involved shooting," | jcims wrote: | The idea is attractive because it's quite obvious how | well ShotSpotter would work in a cleanroom environment. | The part that's less intuitive is how far the standard | deployment environment is from that standard and what | margin the product has to accommodate. | bluejekyll wrote: | > And not a chance I could do that based on microphone | playback between firework and gunshot. | | I'm happy to agree with you on that point, since I don't | have the experience there. | | My larger point is that I could reasonably say allow for | shotspotter to review the sound, but the location I'm | assuming is pretty darn accurate. | | And yes, the article completely destroys their | credibility as a reliable source of evidence. | jcims wrote: | Multipath effects, which for sound are huge in an | environment with large flat surfaces, could create | phantom origin spots at the fringes of the covered area. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | So if your point is it's too complex and variable for | automatic processing; how does adding a human arbitrarily | changing classification and location going to improve | accuracy? Unless it's the shotspotter tech put there | shooting people, seems the company is very successful | bullshit either technically or ethically. | jcims wrote: | If there was solid external evidence of when a shooting | occurred (eg gps timestamped video of the event) I could | see them doing it purely for calibration purposes. | | Clearly those adjustments should not be admitted as | evidence in a court case. ShotSpotter just needs to take | the 'L' and they will have to prosecute without (or admit | whatever was originally recorded as corroborating | evidence). | jkestner wrote: | If the source audio is not reviewable in court, none of it | should be admissible as evidence. Algorithms are just | laundering bad opinions like blood splatter analysis, so that | there's not even a personal reputation at stake. | tolbish wrote: | "Liability laundering" does roll off the tongue more easily | than "machine learning algorithm". | toomuchtodo wrote: | Journalists, courts, and citizen activists. | SavantIdiot wrote: | Careful: the number of people on HN who are now firmly in the | camp of: "there are no facts, there is no truth, all | journalism is propoganda" is astonishingly large, and growing | (it seems to me, anyway). | minikites wrote: | There won't be any consequences, because the police never face | any consequences. There's no way to reform modern policing, the | evidence shows little progress from decades of trying, which is | why modern policing must be abolished and something entirely | different needs to take its place. The police have resisted | incremental reforms, so the only option now is drastic reforms. | dolni wrote: | This reads like a troll message to me, so I'm not sure I | should even engage. But in the off chance it isn't, then if | you actually want to convince people of something you should | try: | | * Not using ridiculous hyperbole | | * Providing a well-reasoned solution instead of just stating | what the problem is | NikolaNovak wrote: | I mean, I'm not in the "Defund police" camp, personally, | quite... but OP doesn't read like troll OR hyperbole, and | I'm not sure why the reaction - this is an increasingly | mainstream perspective. | | Police resisting reforms, limited consequences to police | misbehaviour, and limited progress in attempts to reform, | are I think baseline facts by now. The notion that they | need to be rebuilt from ground up with different | culture/prerogatives/internal processes/priorities again is | nowhere near "troll like". | | >>Providing a well-reasoned solution instead of just | stating what the problem is | | That's a high bar and an unreasonable threshold to speaking | out. A lot of times, recognizing / defining a problem is an | important first step. It should not be suppressed solely | for lack of immediate solution provided. | dolni wrote: | > OP doesn't read like troll OR hyperbole | | Really? And how do you figure that? They literally opened | with "There won't be any consequences, because the police | never face any consequences." The entire planet can name | at least one instance of a cop facing consequences for | their behavior. | | "There's no way to reform modern policing" is a strong | assertion without very much to support it. | | > That's a high bar and an unreasonable threshold to | speaking out. | | No, it isn't. _All_ systems are subject to abuse by bad | actors. _No_ system is perfect. There are only trade- | offs. | | If you have no alternative solution it means you haven't | considered the trade-offs, and if you haven't considered | the trade-offs, you haven't actually spent time thinking | about the problem. | | It's easy to point fingers at what sucks. Everybody can | do it, and everybody is doing it. If you're here on | Hacker News, which is supposed to be a place for | interesting conversation, I expect that you're going to | do better than that. | NikolaNovak wrote: | Fair enough; if the aim is to increase the level of | discourse on HN, that's a noble cause I'd have to | support. | | (Note, and entirely FWIW, I still think message could've | been presented clearer / in a more friendly & productive | fashion - it's usually better to coach and show than to | yell & chastise). | bsanr wrote: | Their post meets both criteria. Their description of the | issue is not hyperbolic; it is a brief but reasonable and | accurate description of the failure of American policing. | Their description of the solution is well-reasoned: it is | not unreasonable to suggest that we should prefer an | institution facing intractable flaws be deconstructed and | replaced with a new one. | | I do think it's unreasonable to expect a detailed | description of this solution off-the-cuff. A simple search | would have provided you with that, though: | https://defundthepolice.org/alternatives-to-police- | services/ | dolni wrote: | > Their description of the issue is not hyperbolic | | Saying that police are never held accountable is, in | fact, hyperbolic. | | > Their description of the solution is well-reasoned | | There's no reasoning beyond first order "this thing | sucks, progress isn't fast enough, it has to go". No | consideration is given to the second or third order | effects of such a massive change. So no, it isn't "well- | reasoned." | | > I do think it's unreasonable to expect a detailed | description of this solution off-the-cuff. | | Hacker News is _supposed_ to be a place for curious and | insightful discussion. Not just issuing complaints about | the social issues of the day. | | I made an attempt to engage in order to try and produce | something substantive, but that fell flat pretty quickly | because no effort was made to produce something well- | reasoned. | | > A simple search would have provided you with that, | though: https://defundthepolice.org/alternatives-to- | police-services/ | | A simple search yielding a page that ignorantly proclaims | "But we have to remember that police do not prevent | violence." Who responds to mass-shootings in progress? | Did a cop not prevent someone from being stabbed in the | Makhia Bryant case? Does solving cases and locking up the | right people who are violet not prevent them from | committing further crimes? | | Your own link is agenda pushing, not a serious analysis | of how & why policing has reached its current state, how | this new system will avoid the same fate, and largely | avoids talking about the potential problems of this new | system. | minikites wrote: | >Providing a well-reasoned solution instead of just stating | what the problem is | | I did: | | >modern policing must be abolished and something entirely | different needs to take its place | dolni wrote: | All you did was state "this thing sucks and it needs to | go." Oh and by the way, it should be replaced by | "something." | | That's not a well-reasoned solution. That's not a | solution at all. All you're doing is complaining. | | Put your money where your mouth is, and come up with what | the "something" should be. | minikites wrote: | Okay, how about starting with a new department modeled | after incredibly successful programs like these? | | https://www.npr.org/2021/03/08/974941422/6-month- | experiment-... | | https://www.npr.org/2021/07/23/1019704823/police-mental- | heal... | dolni wrote: | Both articles mention specifically that police were | replaced _for certain calls_. | | But that doesn't jive with your proposal to completely | eliminate police and replace them with something else. | | I'm not going to engage you any further since it's become | clear you're either trolling or not really trying. | guerrilla wrote: | You have to start somewhere. They started somewhere. It | worked. | guerrilla wrote: | Abolitionists did that all last year. It should be | somewhat common knowledge by now for people who read | news. | dolni wrote: | So I should assume that this guy's opinion is the same as | everyone else's? A+ communication skills. | dragonwriter wrote: | > The police have resisted incremental reforms, | | That's not really the problem. Even where the police have | embraced incremental reforms they've driven funding and | responsibility into the police, pushing them into more | domains for which they are inappropriate, and haven't dealt | with the underlying problems because those aren't peripheral | policy problems but fundamental structural problems of having | a general purpose paramilitary force as a top level local | government organization unto which almost all law enforcement | and some peripheral tasks are layered fostering an insular | warrior culture without any other strong focus. (Note that | when the US was founded--before standing paramilitary | domestic security forces were common enough to be a | particular general concern--avoiding a very similar problem | with military forces which inevitably would get leaned on for | domestic security was a major reason for skepticism of | standing armies in favor of relying on militia + cadre, and | thus for the second amendment.) | | Which also suggests what the "something else" to replace the | police could be--given that abandoning professional permanent | law enforcement for reliance on citizen militia/posses is | probably not viable for modern society, one way to address | that problem is to have specialized law enforcement entities | in domain-specific agencies whose individual foci are | narrower, enabling each to have a cultural focus (and | substantive competence requirements) that are domain | specific. | | And if you look at US law enforcement _beyond_ the local | level, that 's what a lot of it looks like already. The | highly centralized paramilitary law enforcement structure | where the top uniformed commander is a the head of a top | level agency of the unit of government (and possibly | independently elected and effectively unaccountable to the | civilian government officials) is unique to city/county | government. | zozin wrote: | I think you're jumping to conclusions. We don't know their | standard process for reclassifying alerts. Maybe an analyst | reviews every single alert and manual overrides are common. | Maybe post-processing several months later is also standard | practice. | | I get how suspicious this looks, especially the changed geo-tag | that occurred months after, perhaps at the behest of or | influenced by the CPD's investigation, but we should try to be | as objective as possible before accusing people of committing | felonies. | FireBeyond wrote: | > We don't know their standard process for reclassifying | alerts. | | and we don't because they withdrew evidence, rather than | allowing outside review of said processes. | zanderz wrote: | Related: 11 years ago or so, 3 Tesla executives died when their | small plane crashed in East Palo Alto, where the shotspotter | system recorded audio of the crash: | https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2010/02/19/shotspotter-s... ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-26 23:01 UTC)