What’s in a Name: ShotSpotter Becomes SoundThinking, But Problems Remain
by Michael Dean Thompson
If a technology is repeatedly shown by its own data to do very little to reduce crime or assist in homicide investigations – two functions for which it is purported to be designed – will a name change fix it? ShotSpotter had seen a rapid rise as police departments around the country purchased its equipment and services. Recently, however, it has seen a rise in terminated contracts and an associated uptick in lawsuits against journalists. The solution for the company seemed obvious: change their name – to SoundThinking.
ShotSpotter was at least clear in its purpose, as names go. The idea was that by placing “sensors” throughout an area, they could listen for gunshots and triangulate the location. Cops could then be dispatched to the event before the first 911 calls were made. A lot rides on the operation, effectiveness, and location of the devices. The sound of a gunshot can be deflected and delayed by the environment, making triangulation difficult at best, assuming the sound is actually a gunshot and picked up by three or more devices. According to leaked data acquired by Wired, roughly 10% of their distributed devices are listed as broken or out of service. The city of Chicago has more than 3,500 ShotSpotter sensors, yet its police department was unaware when 55 shots were firedat a gyro shop, and two people were injured.
Beyond faulty systems, the problem could have been because of where the equipment had been placed. Critics have long noticed that ShotSpotter sensors found their way to already over policed neighborhoods. ShotSpotter, of course, probably will not take responsibility for where the sensors are placed. Instead, they consult with their customers – police departments– on placement.
The negative image of the company’s tech being used in primarily disadvantaged areas is one reason they are placing more devices at schools, hospitals, billboards, government buildings like the FBI and DOJ, and more. But, those responsible for placement instinctively counter any potential equitable distribution by placing the glorified microphones at public housing buildings. They are even known to offer gift cards to neighborhood residents to place sensors on their property. Nearly three-quarters of those neighborhoods are mostly BIPOC.
Policing biases are a form of confirmation bias. The same thinking that places mics among primarily poor minorities also feeds the distribution of surveillance cameras, trains AI systems that power predictive policing, and decides where to place privacy invading cell-site simulators.
Source: techdirt.com
As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
