90 Cities Install A Covert Technology That Listens For Gunshots (businessinsider.com) 292
An anonymous reader quotes Business Insider:
In more than 90 cities across the US, including New York, microphones placed strategically around high-crime areas pick up the sounds of gunfire and alert police to the shooting's location via dots on a city map... ShotSpotter also sends alerts to apps on cops' phones. "We've gone to the dot and found the casings 11 feet from where the dot was, according to the GPS coordinates," Capt. David Salazar of the Milwaukee Police Dept. told Business Insider. "So it's incredibly helpful. We've saved a lot of people's lives."
When three microphones pick up a gunshot, ShotSpotter figures out where the sound comes from. Human analysts in the Newark, California, headquarters confirm the noise came from a gun (not a firecracker or some other source). The police can then locate the gunshot on a map and investigate the scene. The whole process happens "much faster" than dialing 911, Salazar said, though he wouldn't disclose the exact time.
The company's CEO argues their technology deters crime by demonstrating to bad neighborhoods that police will respond quickly to gunshots. (Although last year Forbes discovered that in 30% to 70% of cases, "police found no evidence of a gunshot when they arrived.") And in a neighborhood where ShotSpotter is installed, one 60-year-old man is already complaining, "I don't like Big Brother being in all my business."
When three microphones pick up a gunshot, ShotSpotter figures out where the sound comes from. Human analysts in the Newark, California, headquarters confirm the noise came from a gun (not a firecracker or some other source). The police can then locate the gunshot on a map and investigate the scene. The whole process happens "much faster" than dialing 911, Salazar said, though he wouldn't disclose the exact time.
The company's CEO argues their technology deters crime by demonstrating to bad neighborhoods that police will respond quickly to gunshots. (Although last year Forbes discovered that in 30% to 70% of cases, "police found no evidence of a gunshot when they arrived.") And in a neighborhood where ShotSpotter is installed, one 60-year-old man is already complaining, "I don't like Big Brother being in all my business."
High crime areas (Score:3, Insightful)
If you know which areas are high crime areas, why not locate the police precinct there?
Re: (Score:2)
Because then the criminals would just move to a different area.
Re: (Score:3)
So move it there then.
Re:High crime areas (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Having strangers drive in from afar isn't better. Residents would start to trust police if police showed themselves to be trustworthy over time.
Because all they're really doing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Along with locating in high crime areas, they'd also want to stop policing much of the "behavior" that's illegal but doesn't hurt anyone -- and actually "protect and serve" the community instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Calling someone a racist doesn't help anything. I know that's what you guys live your life for, but if you actually wanted to help people you'd stop pointing fingers first, last, and always, and you might actually try to get along with people and help them out.
Pointing out institutionalized racism (Score:5, Insightful)
That's institutionalized racism in a nutshell. When you don't even realize you're doing it. When you can say with a straight face "my black friends are fine but..." and mean it. Are law enforcement practices are a huge part of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Helps no one.
It helped blacks (Score:4, Insightful)
So yeah, it's helps.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think that these gunshot detectors have any deterrent value? There's a lot of studies that show people are less likely to commit a crime if they think they could get caught.
For a college statistics course I thought I'd do a study on the correlation between gun laws and crime, since that is a topic of some popularity lately. What I found was a positive correlation between gun restrictions and incidences of rape and murder. The more laws restricting gun ownership the more likely people were going
They might (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but 90+% (98% ?) of people don't need police at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, but 90+% (98% ?) of people don't need police at all.
Sure, even us 98%ers need them:
They investigate accidents.
They are first responders, providing aid until EMT/Fire arrives.
They console the patient's family and often offer them rides behind the ambulance.
They efficiently manage traffic after heavily attended events, such as fireworks.
They drive through my neighborhood as I sleep making sure everything is "OK".
They help find lost kids.
They hang out at high school sports ensuring that the "2%" do not destroy the game for us 98%ers.
They teach subjects
Re: (Score:2)
So station them in high crime areas and have them drive 20 minutes to direct traffic at the stadium or whatever other non-emergency thing you need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: High crime areas (Score:2)
The police towers are strange.
Is it surveillance? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it surveillance? (Score:4)
This won't happen of course. We've been going through this with the Stingrays only recently - these will be unregulated until they're abused, then people will complain, then law enforcement will point out that they've already been using them for a while for all kinds of things with no complaints and that they have become an indispensable tool. Then it will be a long and slow fight to curtail their use, and it will never be curtailed down to the point where they're just detecting gunshots.
20 years (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Really by now these should be standard exhibits in questionable shooting cases.
Oh wait they're not being used to show who fired first or how many shots were actually fired?
Interesting. Perhaps these records should be public.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:15+ years ago I remember it detecting type (Score:5, Funny)
Han shot first. Greedo never shot at all.
Not sure how "covert" this is... (Score:5, Informative)
San Francisco Bay Area police departments have been using this technology for years.
ShotSpotter has been used for several years in six Bay Area cities. Police say ShotSpotter has helped them respond more quickly to crime scenes and capture suspects, and provide court evidence to solve homicide cases. Oakland police started using the gunshot detection technology in 2006; it now covers 80 percent of the city, said Capt. Ersie Joyner.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/11/11/shotspotter-has-long-history-with-bay-area-police/ [mercurynews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
opposing article (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you read the linked blog, or is this snark for the snark of snark?
All the blog entry said was that it was funny the product was getting good press while they were going public, as this was evidence of something shady going on and not the history of just about every company that has gone public in the last 30 years.
"Covert" (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it really a covert technology when it's publicized? I've heard about these installations for years. Even the Summary talks about an article last year in Forbes.
This isn't secret surveillance, it's highly targeted mass surveillance--it only triggers on a very particular thing that involves a high degree of risk to the public. Save your big brother complaints for things like actual internet surveillance, overreaching electronic searches, or better yet for things like reform around the existing big-brother-esque things that cause massive damage to the economy every day. (E.g. bad uses of criminal records or credit reports)
Covert? Bullshit. (Score:4, Informative)
Ooooo! "Covert"!!! Big Brother Bad!
My guess is it's not "covert" if you follow city politics and the city council approval at public meetings necessary to buy and install this technology.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And in a neighborhood where ShotSpotter is installed, one 60-year-old man is already complaining, "I don't like Big Brother being in all my business."
What do you think the chances are this 60 year old man would be first in line to complain that big brother didn't "get in all his business" after he calls 911 to report someone breaking into his home, or stealing his car, or robbing him at gunpoint?
Re: (Score:2)
Works here (Score:5, Interesting)
Combine this with drones... (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always liked the idea of sensors over a city to detect gunshots, but police still take some time to arrive to see what is going on.
I think a big improvement on this would be a fleet of camera drones around the city that could be launched as soon as a gunshot was heard, so you could have a view of the scene in under 30 seconds anywhere in a city...
It would also be really helpful for 911 calls so police could get a video of what was happening at the scene of a call even as they were en-route.
Re: (Score:2)
That would be useless against the kind of criminal that is most problematic right now, the kind that do not care if they get caught because they are on a suicidal mission.
You can get a view of the scene if you like but that's not going to solve the problem. What's likely to solve the problem is people able to shoot back.
Israel had a problem with school shootings until they decided to put armed men guarding the schools. The last "successful" (if you can call it that) school shooting that I could find when
Not at all useless (Score:2)
That would be useless against the kind of criminal that is most problematic right now, the kind that do not care if they get caught because they are on a suicidal mission.
It would be extremely useful for the kinds of attacks we have seen it cities, with a small number of attackers shooting civilians. You would have a drone in the area super quickly and it could follow any suspect(s) found, but even MORE importantly than that lets police know where attackers are NOT. Lots of people wait for medial care whi
Re: (Score:2)
That would be useless against the kind of criminal that is most problematic right now, the kind that do not care if they get caught because they are on a suicidal mission.
That is the kind of criminal that gets the most news coverage, but suicidal mass shooters are not the most problematic type of criminal right now, nor have they ever been.
Around 33,000 people are shot to death each year in the USA.
Out of those 33,000, less than 50 per year are killed as part of a Columbine/Aurora/SanBernardino style shooting spree.
So you're imagining requirements that would apply to about one tenth of one percent of the actual gun homicides that occur. The media (or somebody) has distorted
This is not surveillance (Score:3)
cops aint going to get there in time, or do shit but mop up.
Yes I totally agree, that was my point. But wouldn't it be better for them to be able to be much less hesitant moving in because they knew exactly what had happened and if there were still armed suspects on-scnee? It's certainly better for the people who are shot that medics can move in more quickly.
and surveillance societies, by the government already far too big
Here again I actually agree with you (well except the part where I suck balls or wan
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
As a gun lover, and privacy lover I can't see how this is a bad thing. Cities have gun regulations making it illegal to fire a firearm. If it is a justified self-defence act the person being attacked would like the police to come anyway. If it's an illegal firing then we want the police to respond.
Make it so it's not possible to be used for any other use than dispatching armed officers/first responders even with a warrant or national security issue though without being put forward as vote by all of the voters. It's reasonable to allow surveillance uses of automated technology as long as the public interest and their privacy is protected.
Why it's (sort of) bad (Score:2)
As a gun lover, and privacy lover I can't see how this is a bad thing.
The bad thing about it is that it is basically an admission of defeat in preventing people from shooting at each other in the first place. It solves the wrong problem. The problem that needs to be solved is how do we prevent the violence before it occurs rather than how do we catch offenders more quickly after the fact. Something like this makes sense in a war zone but if you need to install it during what is ostensibly peacetime then something is terribly wrong with public policy. Peaceful cities don't
Covert? (Score:2)
It's in the fucking press, why on earth is this 'covert'?
"(Although last year Forbes discovered that in 30% to 70% of cases, "police found no evidence of a gunshot when they arrived.")"
The word you're looking for is a 'revolver' or a guy who isn't too lazy to pick up his casings.
hilarious (Score:2)
"...We've saved a lot of people's lives."
Sure..., after they were shot?
Re:One way people could mess with this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a brown paper bag, the tall ones you get at liquor stores, blow em up as much as you can, then pop - in the right conditions, in a city, sounds like a fucking gunshot going off.
Says someone with no clue what a real gunshot sounds like.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, a .22 isn't all that loud.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A .22 rifle comes in more like 130.
Re: (Score:2)
How many people think it's fun to cause a bunch of armed and anxious police officers to quickly converge on their own location? Seems like a self-correcting problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Next in the news... (Score:4, Insightful)
From what I understand, nail guns are typically just .22 caliber and would have different sound from the pressure wave. The question then would be, can we detect the difference and is the difference still detectable at a distance or after echoes/reflections?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Next in the news... (Score:5, Interesting)
A powder-actuated nailer doesn't use a traditional barrel or fire a round that files through the air, so the sound made is different.
A system like this is going to have some false-positives, and is going to miss some actual gunshots. This is a given. The point of a system like this is to have a significantly more likely chance of detecting firearms discharge than just relying on people to report it. People in bad neighborhoods may have a snitches-get-stitches attitude, or may just be so jaded to gunshots that they don't bother calling anymore. Either way, this is a somewhat independent way getting information.
Re: (Score:2)
A powder-actuated nailer doesn't use a traditional barrel or fire a round that files through the air, so the sound made is different.
So that means someone could shoot someone else at point blank or otherwise close range, and get away with it, because the report won't trigger the system? I would imagine that being shot with a nail out of a .22 caliber cartridge would probably mess one up as much as a real .22 bullet would do.
Re: Next in the news... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So that means someone could shoot someone else at point blank or otherwise close range, and get away with it, because the report won't trigger the system?
Well if they can "get away with it" now, then yes. It just means the current system of investigations takes effect.
Re: (Score:2)
No, obviously it means someone is talking about powder activated tools without ever having spent much time on building sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. The sound varies hugely depending upon the size of the charge https://www.hilti.com.au/direc... [hilti.com.au] and what you are fixing to what ie wood or steel to concrete or steel. Some times not that loud and sometimes every nearby needs to wear hearing protection. Main reason not that much of a problem, they tend to be the fastener of last resort, simply too slo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Name the city.
Re: Next in the news... (Score:2, Funny)
Imaginarianectadotia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the way to tie a sill plate to concrete is to use a powder-actuated nailer.
Super fun tool to use if you ever get a chance. Also, it's not super loud [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
"SWAT team dispatched at every construction site in the city"... Why ? One of the way to tie a sill plate to concrete is to use a powder-actuated nailer.
They are monitoring problem areas, not all areas. I'd say they know that a construction site is probably a poor place to place a monitor, or to expect nuisance alarms during the day if they do.
Re:Fireworks. (Score:5, Informative)
Firecrackers, nail guns, and anything else that doesn't send a supersonic projectile doesn't have that double crack. It's not hard to tell by ear in many cases and certainly not too hard to automate classification to some acceptable level of false alarm rates.
Re: Fireworks. (Score:5, Informative)
Slight nitpick, sub-sonic .22LR rounds are a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just a thing: the subsonic .22LR makes up a majority of all firearms cartridges manufactured. If you hear two cracks from one of those, one is an echo.
Re: (Score:2)
That is correct. You can get the faster rounds, they are available. Federal cartons are sub-sonics, for example. The faster will say something like Hi-Speed (which Federal does make, but I think only sells in smaller boxes and not the 500 round cartons).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True but the GGP was about .22.
Re:Fireworks. (Score:4, Informative)
There's lots of common handgun ammunition that is subsonic. The .45 Colt and .45 ACP come to mind immediately because I have sidearms chambered for those cartridges. There's also plenty of "specialty" sub-sonic ammunition for other common cartridges like 9mm. There's even subsonic rifle ammunition that is not too hard to find.
I've seen the reasons for these subsonic cartridges to exist in the modern era. First is that they are cheap. It takes less metal and allows for lower tolerances for subsonic ammunition. Second is that there seems to be a lot of people doing cowboy action shooting and other hobbies that like the old style guns. Supersonic ammunition is a fairly recent development, especially for handguns. Third, for a firearm suppressor to work properly subsonic ammunition must be used.
The .45 ACP is apparently quite popular among the special forces types because it can be effectively suppressed. It bothers me when I see people that will make YouTube videos that "show" how ineffective firearm suppressors are by putting one on a gun and fire off supersonic ammunition. I can tell that the ammunition is supersonic by it's distinctive "crack" as it leaves the barrel. Both sides do it too. The "pro-gun" people will want to show that guns can still be detected by things like these shot detectors. The "anti-gun" side do this to show that no one would want them since they don't work, therefore they can be banned, or something.
One thing that I wonder about is the number of false negatives. People talk about the false positives with things like firecrackers or something being detected as a shot but what of a shot that was not detected? Isn't that a thing? I remember reading somewhere of someone that shot another and not waking sleeping children in the next room by wrapping a revolver with a pillow. Had to have been something subsonic like a .45 Colt or .38 Special.
I have to wonder if the criminals will figure this out. Wrapping a revolver in a pillow might be rather conspicuous but there might be other ways to suppress the noise with something to the point it would not be detected by these shot spotters. In the US federal law the possession of a firearm suppressor is tightly controlled. Using a firearm suppressor in the commission of a crime can get a 30 year sentence. I'd think though that in the interest of getting away with murder someone might not be all that concerned about an additional 30 year sentence.
There is a movement in the USA to get firearm suppressors regulated like shotguns (no fees, must be 18 years old, show ID, not have a criminal history, done with 5 minute phone call) instead of like machine guns ($200 tax, fingerprints, extensive background check, 2 years wait for processing, signatures from sheriff, psychiatrist, and your mom, and usually involves a lawyer to get the paperwork in order). This movement is growing because of the obvious hearing protection advantages from suppressors. If that happens then criminals could get them more often by theft, falsifying records, straw purchase, etc.
I'm not a fan of banning suppressors because criminals might use them in a crime. If that were true then we'd be banning a lot of things because criminals use them to harm others. I'm just thinking of how ineffective these shot spotter devices could be in the not too distant future. I think people are relying too much on government and technology to save them from what they fear. That's just not healthy thinking, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2)
My understanding is that suppressors are incredibly easy to get in Commonwealth countries (where the guns are harder to obtain).
That is my understanding as well. Not only are they incredibly easy to obtain it is considered "rude" to not have one.
This is the story I was told on the history of the restrictions on firearm suppressors. The laws restricting gun ownership really started in the USA (and in many nations around the world really) in the 1920s and 1930s. World War One had ended and people had access to a lot of surplus weapons. There was a government concern of another public uprising like what happened around the world in
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Because drugged up loons always hit with the first shot, and one person shooting doesn't cause others to join in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Saved lives? (Score:2)
Suppressor. They aren't made magically silent.
Re: (Score:2)
They are much quieter with small calibers. They're still not silent. They don't sound anything like they do in the movies. (Yes, I've fired quite a few rounds through a suppressor.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all incidents involve a single shot being fired, or all shots being fired in extremely quick succession.
Not all victims die instantly as a result of being shot.
Not all incidents result in someone being shot, but where the shooter is still a danger.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if we completely ignore the idea that further shots can be prevented, arriving quickly at a location where someone has been shot is obviously the best way to save their life. Bullets are not nuclear weapons that vaporize people on impact, about 90% of people who are shot live and we can save more of that last 10% with quicker action.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to live in Maryvale, a suburb of Phoenix AZ
The gunfire was getting ridiculous in the late 1990's, with bullets coming through my front window, teenagers shot in front of my house and 'celebratory' gunfire that included people emptying 30 round clips from AKs and AR-15s
The city installed a shot location system and the state passed 'Shannon's Law' that made it a felony to discharge your weapon into the air in a city
It did not help the drive-by situation directly, but it cut down on the overall amount o
Re:"For Gunshots"... (Score:5, Informative)
Shannon's Law was directed specifically at celebratory gunfire, such as firing into the air for New Year. This is a feature of, um, a certain culture. Shannon was a young girl who went outside with her family to see the New Year in and suddenly dropped dead of a round that had been fired miles away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I never said the clips are good for anything else than quick filling of the magazine. Then again,the clips for most WW1 rifles had exactly the same function, the only difference was that the magazines generally weren't detachable.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Criminals or not it has cut down dramatically on the gunfire in the city
Maybe you are not just trolling and would participate in a thought experiment
1. If a city has a high degree of 'celebratory' gun fire, would that provide cover for people using guns to commit crimes?
2. Then would developing a method to reduce non-criminal discharges of weapons make the criminals using weapons more obvious?
3. Once that the criminals are the only ones firing weapons in the city, would it become easier to locate and respon
Re: "For Gunshots"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps not, but enforcement gives dignity to the law. People begin to respect the law when it is consistently and quickly enforced.
Re: "For Gunshots"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've never understood the "laws are useless because criminals break laws" approach. You hear it a lot in the Second Amendment community.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, I've never understood the "laws are useless because criminals break laws" approach.
Well, that's you. I've never understood the "solution to every problem is more government" approach you totalitarians love, myself.
Re: (Score:2)
Shoving the guns up the arses of idiots who don't understand that they're not a toy is another solution. Do you have any suggestions what to do with people that fire off firearms in a reckless manner?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's you. I've never understood the "solution to every problem is more government" approach you totalitarians love, myself.
So... no laws, ever? For anyone? At all?
Because the examples the OP listed about Phoenix, AZ sound as reasonable and "minimal government."
Re: "For Gunshots"... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, I've never understood the "laws are useless because criminals break laws" approach. You hear it a lot in the Second Amendment community.
If you are referring to "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns." Well, that is one of those word games that proves itself. What it is really going after is that by outlawing guns, law abiding citizens are not allowed to have guns. If you wade past the extremist (AKA the absolutely no gun regulations crowd) you will find that most people agree to background check as long as it is reasonable. When I took my Concealed Weapons class, even my instructor called "constitutional carry" asinine.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is simply not true. In fact, it is the exact opposite of true. Eighty percent of the mass shootings in the last three decades were committed using legally-purchased weapons.
http://time.com/4367592/orland... [time.com]
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyli... [nbcnews.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's a waste of money and only useful for catching the absolute dumbest of criminals...
Make up your mind: is it a waste of money or is it useful? Bear in mind that criminals, like the general population are on average mediocre at their jobs.
Solving the wrong problem (Score:2)
Make up your mind: is it a waste of money or is it useful?
I think most of the time it will be a waste of money. Reason being that it solves the wrong problem. What we should actually want is not a police force that response quicker but public policy that makes it so police response isn't necessary in the first place. Peaceful cities don't get that way by having a hyper-vigilant police force that can respond instantly - if anything that tends to make things worse in most cases. No, cities become peaceful through good public policy and economic opportunity. The
Re: Solving the wrong problem (Score:2, Interesting)
The biggest problems in the US are in Democrat run cities which is the party with the fairest, least discriminatory public policies that run solely on the platform of investing in the poor and underprivileged.
From the US to Africa though, dumping money into a bad situation doesn't help. The money doesn't get to the right people and if it does it is only used to perpetuate the problem and there are often much deeper roots between (black) privilege and engrained anti-establishment sentiments or outright distr
Re: (Score:2)
Hm OK, fair point.
Re: (Score:3)
If the only places that these devices are placed are in "Bad Neighborhoods", then the Police State is demonstrably racist.
Wouldn't it be racist to assume 'bad neighborhoods' had a racial identity or connotation?
Driving while black (Score:3, Insightful)
Protip: If you don't break the law, you don't have to worry about being """overpoliced""" (That is, you don't have to worry about being a criminal if you are not a criminal). It's that simple.
No it is not that simple. Every single black man I know has had the lovely experience of being harassed by police for driving while black [wikipedia.org]. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. They were not breaking any laws or causing any problems when it happened. Just because you haven't broken any law does not even begin to mean that you do not have to worry about being over policed.
Just because you have nothing to hide doesn't mean you have nothing to fear.
Re: Driving while black (Score:3, Interesting)
Funny because I have an extensive black family that doesn't have that problem. You do not get pulled over for being black, you get pulled over because there was cause, if a cop had to pull over 40% of all drivers without cause, they'd never ever write a ticket not to mention it's very hard to see race when someone is speeding past you at 60mph, from an angle in the dark.
I'm white and I've been pulled over many times, oftentimes without receiving a ticket. One time I was looking for a street and accidentally
Re: (Score:2)
(unmarked cars are not about preventing crime, they are for catching people after they break the law).
No, marked cars are for catching people after breaking the law as well as a number of other things. Unmarked cars are for catching people 'as' they are committing a crime. Theoretically, if all cars were marked then a criminal would always know when it was safe to commit a crime.
But marked vs unmarked cars isn't a primary issue or solution. Spending more money doesn't seem to help either, because how that money is used is often limited to inneffective programs (not saying there are no effective ones that