I just want to point out that while you're being nasty, I do 100% want to tear down your system. Police apply tools like this to justify the policies and abuses they were already going to do. It should not exist.
Which policies and abuses have been linked to shot spotter systems?
These are among the least-worrying systems because they don't indiscriminately capture information about passers-by (or even suspected offenders, for that matter).
It literally just notifies them that it thinks there were gunshots and attempts to localize them to a particular block.
American police are empowered to do pretty much anything if they believe someone has a gun, including shoot people in the back while fleeing, or with their hands up, or unannounced for simply holding an object.
This system gives police a cause to go out looking for that situation, and a reason to arrive ready to shoot. Like come on man, the entire thing could not be better designed to push police into shooting folks.
> This system gives police a cause to go out looking for that situation, and a reason to arrive ready to shoot. Like come on man, the entire thing could not be better designed to push police into shooting folks.
You have an interesting point, but how an acoustic sensor any different than someone making a shots-fired call to 911? Police are going to arrive on-scene with the same assumptions.
Like so many other safety and privacy things, the difference is simply the scale and automation. Like how there's little philosophical or legal difference between a detective sitting and listening to your phone calls and an automated system scanning them and listening for keyword.
But the real consequences are very different despite that! The automation allows it to be used more freely at low cost, to go "fishing" for crimes rather than investigate a specific instance. And a wider net will catch more false positives, and with the shotspotter having cops show up guns blazing to teenagers with fireworks for example is a heavy consequence.
Since these choices affect peoples' lives in real ways, we're obligated to consider the actual effects, rather than the philosophical foundation. It may not be "any different" in an abstract sense, but this concrete instance is very different and we have to consider that in its use.
I'm finding it difficult to accept that police are the only demographic who are immune to alarm fatigue.
In fact, it would seem that not only are they immune to it, but respond paradoxically, in contrast to - well, everyone else, from college kids to IT staff to doctors to other public safety people.
This leads me to believe that The Real Problem are the people with guns who use them to shoot other people, not automatic alarms.
It's your system too. It helps keep all of us more safe, and more alive, than we would be without anything. If you succeed in tearing down our system, it will be a very bad time for everyone.
I'm not saying we should have nothing, I'm saying we shouldn't have this.
If our policing system kept us safe americans would be the safest people in history. In fact our safety would have doubled over the last few decades, as our police spending has. Does that fit your experience or knowledge?
My position here is that this system isn't failing at its purpose but that its purpose is in fact something other than keeping us safe. We should tear it down and construct a different system, specialized towards that goal.
And anyway this "all of us" viewpoint is one you can have based on your experience but I can't have based on mine. My people are taught to fear the police, they are a terror to us. The only violence I have ever experienced in my life has been at the hands of police. You're asking me to believe they keep me safe when my experience and the data show me otherwise.
