Trust, But Verify

Well, I don't know what happened to my post?

There are pictures on the internets.

Here's a TV news video from SF.

And, ShotSpotter website.

Why the smackdown on the pics Shirlene? It's on the W.W.W

We can't even trust Shirlene with the way she's running (albeit as a puppet-string) the police department; how the heck can we trust her about the microphones?

I looked at the ShotSpotter Web site, and I like the idea of gun shots being detected since the police can't be everywhere at once, but I still wonder how effective that will be with the shortage we have now.

Brent, here's what they have in the FAQs:

What about my privacy?
ShotSpotter is committed to preserving privacy rights. ShotSpotter systems do not trigger on human speech or other non-threatening sounds. Furthermore, our sensors render human speech unintelligible at distances greater than 20 feet away from our sensors, and therefore even if someone were to be speaking coincidentally at the same time as a gunshot is detected (hence triggering the system), the system would likely only record the sound of the voice, while the words themselves would remain garbled. What about people standing less than 20 feet away from the sensor? Remember that ShotSpotter sensors are deployed on rooftops, telephone poles or in other restricted-access locations. Locations are specifically chosen to avoid the possibility of people or conversations being overheard.

Isn’t this “Big Brother”?
With all due respect to Mr. Orwell, gunshot location systems are not intended or used to spy on our citizens. (See the answer immediately preceding for details on how ShotSpotter does not trigger on noises which do not sound like gunfire.) In cities in which ShotSpotter is deployed, it is illegal to discharge a firearm except on a certified shooting range or under other controlled circumstances. Thus, anyone who does fire a gun has broken the law, and it is our position—with which district attorneys, police and civil rights groups agree—that firing a weapon illegally within city limits creates a significant threat to public safety and therefore warrants the detection of the event, investigation of its perpetrators, and possible indictment of suspects.

If the police chief wasn't even able to share this information with you, it makes me wonder how much she read up on it before presenting it.

Trust, but Verify does not apply here. Verify, THEN trust is more appropriate.

Saw this in the Metro GLS section:

Forensic Data All detected and located events are saved in a secure, unchangeable database, including an 8 second snippet of audio. This can be used to substantiate witness testimony.

We would need to know more about how the information is kept secure and how long they keep it. Also, what if a defect causes ShotSpotter to record more than eight seconds, and they record a conversation that has nothing to do with what happened? What is done with the recording?

Good point, Lady Havoc. I agree.

"By the way, I wanted to post with this blog entry a photo of the Shotspotter cameras that may soon be surveilling your neighborhood. But before I could snap a photo, I was told by J.P.D. Chief Anderson that if I were to take a picture of the government’s surveillance camera, my personal camera would be confiscated."

Really????? Wow.

I tell you what.... Ask her to quote the statute that says she can confiscate your camera under. Seriously. And when she can't, take a pic, wait for her to confiscate your camera, and sue.