Slashdot Mirror


Chicago Debates Merits of ShotSpotter Technology

theodp writes "After a week that saw more than 40 people shot and at least 4 killed, Chicago politicians and police are at odds on whether to implement ShotSpotter, a camera and acoustic sensor-based gunshot-location system that is designed to pinpoint a shooter's location within seconds. The Chicago Police Department opposes such a move, saying ShotSpotter wasn't reliable in an earlier trial and — at $250,000 for a square mile of coverage — is too expensive. The company says the system has dramatically lowered crime rates in cities across the country. ShotSpotter is currently deployed in two countries and 51 US cities and counties."

8 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Listen to the police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You gotta understand the police mentality. They resist any kind of change, more so if it's going to make them busy and even more if it'll get them in trouble. Picture highschool, if you will. Remember the jocks on the football team? By and large, it's the same mentality.

    I implemented a software project for a police department. I did my homework, fully vetted the system. I had limited trials and corrected what needed to be corrected. Come deployment, not a single officer used it. After months of work, the project was canned because the offers had "tried it and it didn't work". Aside from my early adopters ( the ones who had used it while it beta so I could squash any last minute bugs ), not a single officer had logged in to the system.

    Later I find out that they were upset that they weren't getting their 12% annual contract raise, and because the software had cost something on the order of 10,000, they were boycotting it for dick-swinging reasons. These aren't the kind of people I would base any decision on.

    That said, it speaks more that the politicians do want this system. That'd be enough to terminate any project as far as I am concerned.

  2. works in Boston by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I regularly see news stories in Boston where the police get a shotspotter alert, show up, find a guy bleeding out on the sidewalk, and sometimes they find him fast enough to call EMS and get him to a hospital and save his life.

    I don't think they should have cameras, but the technology is sound- and it certainly is better use of tax money than where most money is going (all sorts of anti-terrorism crap.) The question: why is such a simple technology so hideously expensive? There should be little patentable in the field, given how old and obvious sonic triangulation is. The equipment is super simple- an embedded computer in an outdoor enclosure with a microphone...

  3. Re:Listen to the police by maroberts · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I suspect that as the police might be on the receiving end of some of those fired shots, they would be unlikely to be opposed to a system which worked reliably. If the system was not installed or operated correctly then there is probably some blame attached to the company for not offering the correct support to ensure these went smoothl

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  4. We have it in Rochester, NY by purduephotog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It works great, or so I'm told. They're able to get cops to where the shooter fired within minutes- and in plenty of time to round up witnesses who swear they "saw nuttin".

    There's been at least one drive by in my 'work' neighborhood, and about a dozen+ deaths within a mile. Two bullets in our building. One in the front door within 5 minutes of me entering it (now THAT will freak you out- come into work, forget something, go back to the car and the door has been shot).

  5. Re:Listen to the police by DrVxD · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Interesting point - but I suspect it's actually to the converse of what you're suggesting.

    Consider - the police will (generally) have localised those shots that are being fired at them - so this system makes little difference in that case. However, what it will do is locate other gunshots - which the police will then have to respond to (and thus putting themselves in the firing line)

    --
    Not everything that can be measured matters; Not everything that matters can be measured.
  6. Re:Here's a radical idea by rubycodez · · Score: 4, Interesting

    my wife and her cousin were mugged in full view of police camera on Argyle street ("vietnamese town"), and the images from the camera on telephone pole were utterly useless. couldn't see under hat brim to see face, the perps know they can just keep their chin slightly down with a cap and they can rob, rape, and murder in camera shot. the percentage of crimes solved using those camera pictures is in the realm of statistical noise.

    Good decent people own guns in illinois and have their FOID card, but they aren't the ones doing drive by shooting or holding up liquor stores or banks. But that idiot hypocrite Mayor Daley, who relies on armed people for protection, says gun ownership by good decent law-abiding people (the ones who don't have guns in chicago right now) having the means to defend themselves would mean an explosion of crime. what a moron, both my brothers live in states that allow concealed carry, and in both their cities of residence the crime rate has plummeted.

  7. Re:Here's a radical idea by couchslug · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "with the response time and technology of the police nowadays that section of your constitution doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me"

    WTF are you babbling about? Been watching too many cop shows methinks. :)

    Unless you live next door to a police station, response time is still "reaction time", not "intervention/interdiction/prevention".

    That means the cops show up to scrape your dead arse off the pavement if you lost the fight.

    In my case, I lived far enough out that the cops couldn't find my house for more than a half-hour. The white trash crackheads partying on my perimeter road told my wife (I was deployed at the time) to piss off when she asked them to leave. That they didn't do more is likely because she was carrying a 5.56 Ruger Mini-14. She returned to the house, put a few rounds into the ground (NOT horizontally, no one was in danger) where they couldn't see the impact area but we could dig up the bullets if required), and they left rapidly never to return.

    The sheriff was pleased, our neighbors ditto, and we got no more visitors. Beats going home to a fucked/dead wife and a looted house in my book.

    BTW, the US can't be peaceful because it is too culturally and economically diverse. American subgroups have nothing in common, so the only way to keep society reasonably peaceful is to contain the most violent by force. Even the Coalition allows Iraqi heads of household to have one full-auto battle rifle because it is necessary in order to avoid being a victim.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  8. Gang leaders by OrwellianLurker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone who is somewhat important in a gang would be wise to get all the kids in the neighborhood to damage the acoustic sensors. If this was impossible, another smart move would be to start shooting A LOT. Not at anything in particular-- just grab a pistol, put it in a bag, and fire. Get out of the area quickly (ditch the gun if necessary) and waste police resources tremendously. I'm betting that after thousands of rounds being pumped into the ground the police will stop responding.

    --
    'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung