Slashdot Mirror


Audio Surveillance, Intended to Detect Gunshots, Can Pick Up Much More

New submitter groovethefish writes "This NYT article highlights the use of electronic listening devices installed on utility poles, buildings, and other structures, then centrally monitored for gunshots. The company SureSpotter claims it helps reduce time wasted by police searching for the source of gunfire in their patrol areas, but the privacy implications are just hitting the courts. If they are monitoring 24/7 and also pickup conversations along with gunshots, can that be used against the people who are recorded?" Evidently, Yes: the linked article describes just such a case. Continues groovethefish: "The company line, from the article: 'James G. Beldock, a vice president at ShotSpotter, said that the system was not intended to record anything except gunshots and that cases like New Bedford's were extremely rare. "There are people who perceive that these sensors are triggered by conversations, but that is just patently not true," he said. "They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot."'"

31 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. No expectation of privacy by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Informative

    QUOTE: "In at least one city, New Bedford, Mass., where sensors recorded a loud street argument that accompanied a fatal shooting last December, the system has raised questions about privacy and the reach of police surveillance, even in the service of reducing gun violence."

    The Supreme Court has ruled people have no expectation of privacy in a public setting or publicly-open facility (like a mall). Note that also includes cops who try to make you turn-off your videocamera or audio recorder. They don't have any right to privacy either, and can not force you to turn them off, or confiscate & erase the evidence.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:No expectation of privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      QUOTE: "In at least one city, New Bedford, Mass., where sensors recorded a loud street argument that accompanied a fatal shooting last December, the system has raised questions about privacy and the reach of police surveillance, even in the service of reducing gun violence."

      The Supreme Court has ruled people have no expectation of privacy in a public setting or publicly-open facility (like a mall). Note that also includes cops who try to make you turn-off your videocamera or audio recorder. They don't have any right to privacy either, and can not force you to turn them off, or confiscate & erase the evidence.

      There are twelve states in which all parties must consent to being audio recorded, otherwise it's a felony, one of which is Massachusetts. Ten of those states have an 'expectation of privacy' clause which would make recording people in a park legal. The two which don't are Illinois and, you guessed it, Massachusetts.

    2. Re:No expectation of privacy by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Informative

      >>>one of which is Massachusetts

      Yes and that law is now nullified by the First Circuit Court of the U.S. which declared "citizens have a first amendment right to record their public officials in the performance of their duties." - Then they freed the citizen who was being charged under wiretap laws for recording an law enforcement officer.

      In other words, cops may not force you to turn off your camera, per your 1st amendment "freedom of the press" right which allows not just recording conversation with pen-and-paper (like the old days) but also with audio or video.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    3. Re:No expectation of privacy by Java+Pimp · · Score: 2

      I believe that applies when there IS an expectation of privacy. I most certainly can video tape in public places and unintentionally (or intentionally) record activities of bystanders. If not, no one would be able to have video of their kids on the beach or at an amusement park or video of any other kind of public activity.

      --
      Ascalante: Your bride is over 3,000 years old.
      Kull: She told me she was 19!
    4. Re:No expectation of privacy by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      >>> the police have no responsibility to give the recording in full to the defense

      Yes they do. If it's later discovered they were withholding evidence, the defendent is automatically freed because he didn't get a fair trial. So the police have a responsibility to turn over everything (else they'd just be stupid).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:No expectation of privacy by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In other words, cops may not force you to turn off your camera

      Except that they can still ask you to turn off your camera, and they can still arrest you if you don't. They just have to come up with some other charge(contempt of cop), or release you without charge after holding you long enough to miss the shot. And if you got it, oops, the sd card went missing somehow. Too bad about that. That's if your lucky and the officer didn't mistake your camera for a gun.

      Has any officer anywhere been disciplined in any way (other than paid vacation) for violating the legal rights of a photographer? Unless you can answer in the affirmative, the circuit court decision doesn't mean anything really.

      The protections we actually have against criminals in uniform are vanishingly slim.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:No expectation of privacy by SandorZoo · · Score: 2

      Wow. Just Wow. I'm in my 40s, grew up in the UK, and live in Germany where there are about 40 murders with guns every year. I don't think I've every heard a gun being fired outside of a firing range or similar, and I live within gunshot of the centre of a city of around 150K people.

      I only ever remember seeing a gun once where you wouldn't expect it (i.e. not carried by police/army, and not on a range). That was in Rome about 15 years ago, and even then it might be that the guy wielding it was undercover. It looked like it to me.

    7. Re:No expectation of privacy by I_am_Jack · · Score: 3, Funny

      How was medieval surf different from renaissance surf or even baroque surf? Different tidal forces? Was it the ability to design the board art with the proper perspective? Or the emergence of a merchant class which would allow the mobility for former serfs to surf themselves? ;)

    8. Re:No expectation of privacy by nbauman · · Score: 2

      Big disparities in wealth are unjust.

      They're also inefficient. More egalitarian societies have more efficient economic production.

    9. Re:No expectation of privacy by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      I believe OP was using the car vs. house thing to illustrate income disparity within the US. The further implication is that those who are wealthier (the person with the pricey car in his example) are those who the police do not bother. This happens not as a result of differences in crime rates, but because of differences in power within society.

      Either that or he was talking about Chaucer's Endless Summer.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
  2. "They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot."

    So, how are they listening for a gunshot, and then recording the gunshot, after the gunshot was fired?! Is that not a blatant lie or am I being daft?

  3. Re:"They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot. by SJHillman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think they mean the recording portion doesn't turn on unless the sensing portion detects a gunshot. A poorly worded sentence, to be sure. It's like your TV - even when your TV is "off", the small component that listens for your remote is still on.

  4. Re:"They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How can you verify a sound was a gunshot THEN record it?

  5. Not Hardly by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 2

    In my state of Wisconsin, it is against the law to record a conversation between two parties without the express knowledge of one of the parties. This instance would most likely be inadmissible in any court case. I believe this is the recording law in many states as well, but I only have experience dealing with it here.

    --
    If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
  6. Cops can get away with it unfortunately by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They don't have any right to privacy either, and can not force you to turn them off, or confiscate & erase the evidence.

    They may not have any right to privacy but they certainly can, in real life, force you to turn them off, confiscate and erase the evidence. Doesn't mean it is legal for them to do so but they certainly are capable of doing it and probably will get away with it too. After all, once the evidence is deleted it becomes your word against theirs and they tend to hold the advantage there. Obviously cops should be held at least to the same standards as regular citizens (if not higher standard) but we know that it doesn't always work out the way it should in actual practice. The certainly aren't going to get thrown in jail and probably not even reprimanded and they know it.

    1. Re:Cops can get away with it unfortunately by silas_moeckel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A system where they are fired and sent to jail for 20 years as a federal crime would help a bit as well.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    2. Re:Cops can get away with it unfortunately by hawguy · · Score: 2

      >>>force you to turn them off, confiscate and erase the evidence

      Yes they can FORCE you to do it. That's what government is best at: Use of force to suppress natural rights. BUT you can also prosecute the cops under the law for destruction of material evidence. He would be fined or demoted.

      I think you meant to say that he will receive 2 weeks on administrative leave with pay (what most of us call "vacation") while the situation is investigated, then he'll be cleared and returned to duty.

    3. Re:Cops can get away with it unfortunately by Thelasko · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are in fact a number of cases of "dirty cops" in jail and also collecting their pension.

      If so, you should have no problem providing specific examples of at least a few of them.

      My personal favorite.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    4. Re:Cops can get away with it unfortunately by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 3, Informative
      A local tv station had a story on this a few weeks ago

      When former Greece Police Chief Merritt Rahn was found guilty of cover-up crimes involving two of his officers, he lost his job, his reputation and his freedom. He didn't, however, lose his taxpayer funded pension. For the past two years, while behind bars, Rahn has been collecting a retirement pension of $55,000 per year.

      "Well if he does, he doesn't deserve it, that's for sure," said Greece resident Bob Warnick when we told him of Rahn's pension.

      In fact, that's just the tip of the iceberg. We found many public employees convicted of crimes and still collecting their pensions. And it's perfectly legal.

      After digging online, we ran the names of some former dubious local public employees into a database that tracks pensions. And here's what I Team 10 discovered:

      *Former state assemblyman Jerry Johnson. Convicted of breaking into a staff member's home in Livingston County, he retired in 2000 and now collects an annual pension of $39,807.

      *Bob Morone, in prison for his part in the county Robutrad scandal...$18,790.

      *Former City of Rochester inspector William Redden, who admitted to taking bribes in a bid rigging scheme...$21,376.

      *Former Monroe County Sheriff's Deputy James Telban was found guilty of misdemeanor DWI in a crash that killed a motorcyclist. He still gets his pension...$30,000 a year.

      *John Stanwix, former Monroe County Water Authority chairman who pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of steering contracts to a consulting company he owned has an staggering pension of $98,658 per year.

      *Nelson Miles, Jr., formerly a teacher in Caledonia-Mumford, who downloaded child porn...$21,705.

      *Crooked cop Gary Pignato, now locked up for using his badge in Greece to coerce women into sex, gets $45,494 a year.

      and that's just a partial list from one small area that isn't Chicago or New Orleans

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
  7. Sound familiar? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The TSA scanners didn't store images until we found out they stored images. Then we were told they only stored images for testing until we found out they stored images all the time. Then we found out the images were easily accessible to anyone after being reassured that there were ample security measures to prevent any yahoo from distributing humiliating or enticing images of some people.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  8. Given a choice by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Given a choice between outlawing guns and having a sensitive listening device on every street corner that can listen in on conversations like Big Brother, I'd prefer to outlaw guns.

    1. Re:Given a choice by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 2

      Given a choice between outlawing guns and having a sensitive listening device on every street corner that can listen in on conversations like Big Brother, I'd prefer to outlaw guns.

      Unfortunately or not, for you, the U.S. constitution has no explicit right to privacy like you desire, yet it has a right to gun ownership, to some arguable degree.

    2. Re:Given a choice by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Given a choice between outlawing guns and having a sensitive listening device on every street corner that can listen in on conversations like Big Brother, I'd prefer to outlaw guns.

      Outlawing guns will only serve to guarantee that there will be listening devices on every corner - and in your house, workplace, transportation, and anywhere else BB wants to watch you.

      Do you not realize why we have a guaranteed right (and some will go so far to say, duty) to keep and bear arms in this country? Hint: it has nothing to do with gathering food.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  9. Re:"They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot. by jlv · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While I agree it's not supposed to be permanent, a short circular buffer *is* a recording, and it means the device is on all the time.

    For instance, the circular buffer used by the ReplayTV DVR for live TV pausing is supposed to be transient and inaccessible, but (due to a bug) it is possible to stream that video to other devices on the network. IIRC, the Tivo lets you save the pause buffer.

    His statement shows that James G. Beldock is either ignorant of his company's own technology or attempting to "dumb down" the description of the technology to avoid scaring the common folk. Either way, it says nothing good about him or ShotSpotter.

  10. Re:"They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

    think they mean the recording portion doesn't turn on unless the sensing portion detects a gunshot. A poorly worded sentence, to be sure. It's like your TV - even when your TV is "off", the small component that listens for your remote is still on.

    TFA talks about an argument recorded by this system, associated with a shooting.

    Unless the argument happened AFTER the shooting, it's unlikely they only start recording as a result of a shooting.

    And it the argument DID happen after the shooting, I really can't see how it is even relevant to the case, unless the argument was on the order of "I can't believe you just shot that guy!! WTF?"

    Which I don't believe, since I expect that if two people were wandering down the street, one pulled out a gun and shot someone else, then that two of them would be too busy running like hell to have an argument....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  11. Re:"They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot. by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Informative

    I implemented several IP cameras for a previous employer. They had a nifty little "record on motion" feature in which it wouldn't record (could still be monitored live) to the NAS unless there was motion detected. One of the big selling points around this feature was that it could actually record up to 30 seconds BEFORE the motion that triggered it so you could be sure you weren't missing anything before the camera was triggered. I believe it did it by keeping a couple minutes of video in a buffer on the camera. If an event triggered it, that buffer would be written to the NAS first and then it would continue appending the live video to the storage until the motion stopped plus X minutes. This system likely works in a similar fashion - it keeps a buffer that's continually overwritten until an event (IE: gunshot) triggers it to be saved to permanent media.

  12. We had these in Iraq by jesseck · · Score: 2

    When I was there in 2005, some humvees had these. They didn't work well, and picked up a lot of false positives. When I returned a second time in 2006 / 2007, I don't recall seeing a single ShotSpotter. But the ShotSpotters made the guardshack's day when they could come back from dropping Marines at post and say "We were shot at! The ShotSpotter beeped, said it came from the right!"

  13. Re:"They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot. by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Informative

    I posted in more detail elsewhere in this article, but I installed a security camera system that could store some footage from before motion tripped the camera. Basically, once motion was in the frame (or a specific part of the frame), it writes everything from the buffer preceding the motion detection to storage and then appends the live video until X seconds/minutes after the motion stops. Unless there's a trigger, the preceding footage never gets written to storage. Technically, the buffer is a type of storage but it's very small, often overwritten, and only used if a trigger event is detected shortly thereafter.

  14. Re:"They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot. by Lucky75 · · Score: 2

    You can do something where you continuously record and then throw away the recording after a few seconds if nothing was triggered. A lot of busses do that with video recordings so that they can have footage of a crash if it occurs.

    --
    DNA -- National Dyslexic Association
  15. Re:"They don't turn on unless they hear a gunshot. by camperdave · · Score: 2

    The military system is called Boomerang. It uses a cluster of microphones on a pole on a vehicle. The onboard systems can triangulate the shot directly, using the timing differences in the arrival of the gunshot.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  16. our lack of imagination v. comforting descriptions by Onymous+Coward · · Score: 2

    We should probably put a more critical eye towards possibilities.

    The system turns on when it detects gunshots. But it's extra sensitive, so it often catches things that aren't actually gunshots. And it stays on for half an hour. Effectively, it's recording half the day.

    Nominal behavior is not actual behavior.