# Threat or Menace?



## tellner (Dec 31, 2007)

http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_7850694?nclick_check=1
(Warning: Soul-sucking registration required)



> East Palo Alto police tonight will introduce gunshot detection technology to the city, part of the department's crime reduction initiative for 2008, police reported.
> 
> Police will conduct a live test of its ShotSpotter system at 3 p.m. before the system goes online at 9 p.m., according to police.
> 
> ...


----------



## Big Don (Jan 1, 2008)

Seems like it might be a fun bit of technology to spoof. Fire crackers, car backfires, excessively loud flatulence...


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 1, 2008)

I saw a spot on the news about how Chicago is putting this system into place as well.


----------



## searcher (Jan 1, 2008)

I don't think it can be good, but if it assists law-abiding gun owners in protecting themselves and others then they should go for it.    I just don't think that is what it will be used for.

As for Chicago, if I lived there I would move ASAP.   The people running that city are messed up and need to be voted out.   JMO.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jan 1, 2008)

I used similar technology once while running a department.  This technology identified primarily screams but also now and then backfires, etc.  The one instance where it worked fantastic was in a parking structure when a person attempted to abduct a woman and because of the technology we caught it on camera and had an officer there in under fifteen seconds. (we were in the area and very close meaning we were on the top level of the parking structure)  Lot's of potential for good things with this type of technology.  Of course there is potential for bad as well.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 1, 2008)

DC's been using it (or a similar program) for several years.  I don't know how much trouble they have with false alerts from backfires, etc., but it has been useful in at least a few investigations.  Personally, I'm not too worried.  We're already under so much private surveillance (with fewer checks and balances) that even if this system could somehow record and monitor conversations, it'd be nothing new.


----------



## Guardian (Jan 1, 2008)

*I don't see anything wrong with it in the present form they wish to use it.  Why not, if it can help law enforcement, more power to them and if they get a back fire here and there, then it's whether the good outweighs the bad of it, there's always glitches to work out in any system, the bigger the system/city, the bigger the glitches.*

*Will have to take a wait and see outlook on this.*


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 1, 2008)

One type of call I always hated going to was a report of shots fired.  Usually, where I work, it meant someone heard bangs and called it in.  If we were really lucky, we had a general direction or two or three calls that might triangulate it a little bit.  Typically, by the time the call comes in, and the officer responds... there's not a clue about where it might have been.  A system like this can correborate the callers, and give a lot more information about where it may have been.  If it is a case where someone got shot, that could make the difference between cops getting there, finding nothing, and clearing it as unfounded, or cops finding the victim, and getting them rescue instead of finding them dead the next day.


----------



## Big Don (Jan 1, 2008)

If I ever have to shoot somebody, the cops showing up faster would be a good thing...


----------



## Brian King (Jan 1, 2008)

As somebody that believes we are due for more terrorist violence I am remembering the sniper killings in the DC area a couple of years ago and how a system like this may have helped catch those two murderers sooner. As with any system there are glitches and ways of getting around it but that does not mean that the technology should not be deployed and utilized.

Regards
Brian King


----------



## chinto (Jan 2, 2008)

searcher said:


> I don't think it can be good, but if it assists law-abiding gun owners in protecting themselves and others then they should go for it.    I just don't think that is what it will be used for.
> 
> As for Chicago, if I lived there I would move ASAP.   The people running that city are messed up and need to be voted out.   JMO.



unfortunately that is more then likely totally true!!...  sad, but so true.


----------



## tellner (Jan 2, 2008)

To call Chicago's government corrupt is like calling New Orleans' "filled with scandal" or Detroit "economically troubled". It's so understated as to be actively misleading 

The thing that bothers me is how this can be used. To have enough sensors and cameras in place with enough monitoring to make a difference you'd need thousands of devices, maybe tens of thousands, and dozens or hundreds of people. They'd need to cover huge areas with some redundancy. And that's once you get past the fact that they're useful for catching someone afterwards, not getting the police there in time to stop or prevent anything. According to articles I read in the Times of London and the Guardian over the last few weeks there's no evidence that the UK's huge and expensive array of surveillance cameras has stopped any particular crime. They are supposed to solve a much easier problem.

I can't see this making much of a difference. 

Speed cameras are somewhat effective. They only have to look at small, well defined areas and capture an event that is happing in a specific location for several seconds. This is a much more difficult problem.

This seems to be much more useful for two sorts of things:

1) Event security. A network of gunshot detection devices could be used to cover a specific area at a specific time. If the President or a foreign Head of State were making an appearance the police and Secret Service would know where he or she would be every single moment. The gunshot detection system could be used to supplement human eyes and ears, denying cover and anonymity to would-be assassins. The problem is much simpler because the "search space" is much smaller and attention need only be devoted for a limited time.

2) Police responding to dangerous situations. "Where is the gun?" (or more properly "Where are the guns?") is a question at the top of every officer's mind when responding to a "shots fired" or "armed suspect" call. Officers responding to these would be at an advantage if they could bring equipment that told them where the shots were coming from.


----------



## K31 (Jan 2, 2008)

Brian said:


> As somebody that believes we are due for more terrorist violence I am remembering the sniper killings in the DC area a couple of years ago and how a system like this may have helped catch those two murderers sooner. As with any system there are glitches and ways of getting around it but that does not mean that the technology should not be deployed and utilized.
> 
> Regards
> Brian King



No.

The DC sniper shootings took place in the Maryland and Virginia suburbs and covered an extremely wide area.

The people in the immediate vicinity in many cases knew they were being shot at but had been conditioned by the police in charge of the investigation to look only for a "white man in a white van" despite of eye witness reports to the contrary.  Other police departments had been fed this information as well and continued to look for the wrong people right up until the day the actual snipers were caught.


----------



## arnisandyz (Jan 2, 2008)

I'm guessing your average thug doesn't have a suppressor, but as crime fighting technology evolves expect the criminals to adapt. Think I might pickup a few suppressors while I still can., not so I can use them in a crime, but before they are banned for legal ownership.


----------



## Trent (Jan 2, 2008)

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."-- Samuel Johnson.

"Hell is full of good intentions or well intended desires."-- St. Bernard of Clarivaux (1091- 1153)

Needless to say, I don't like it.   There are a myriad of reasons why the system would be more expensive to operate and maintain than could be imagined for a prolonged period, and the risk (civil rights violations of uninvolved and innocent citizens due to the constant false alarms) and cost associated with it would far outweigh any perceived benefit on the off chance of catching a miscreant.

Even if the system worked perfectly, it would only allow law enforcement to respond faster to the scene after the crime has occurred.  It would prevent nothing.


----------



## tellner (Jan 2, 2008)

On the other hand, it would let the City Fathers congratulate each other on how they were "doing something about the Scourge of Gun Violence". More important, it would mean a steady stream of swill from the public trough to the vendors.  Even better, they could sell new improved models every couple of years for new improved prices :bird:


----------

