非常時における事業者間ローミング等に関する検討会(第12回)配布資料
情報通信審議会 情報通信技術分科会ITU部会 衛星・科学業務委員会(第39回)の開催について
「令和5年度 救急業務のあり方に関する検討会 報告書」の公表
「消防機関におけるNBC災害時の対応能力の高度化に関する検討会報告書」及び「化学災害又は生物災害時における消防機関が行う活動マニュアル」の公表
地域におけるデジタル技術の利活用を支えるデジタル基盤の利用環境の在り方ワーキンググループ(第3回)
第307回官民競争入札等監理委員会 書面審議(会議資料)
第36回国民経済計算体系的整備部会
消費者保護ルールの在り方に関する検討会(第55回)
【焦点】著作者人格権奪う世田谷区に見直し求める要望書第二弾を提出、29日まで回答を=橋詰雅博
次期戦闘機第三国輸出の閣議決定にNO!3.26官邸前緊急行動へ
レイバーネット川柳班:3月句会の全投句を紹介します
レイバーネット総会報告 : 特別企画 講談「房総・花物語」が大反響
東京東部労組:労働者の力で戦争をとめよう!労組反戦情宣
カタルーニャの独立運動がスペインに恩赦法の成立を迫る
学校現場で「汚染水」の用語を使うな!/福島県議会が「トンデモ意見書」を採択
【オピニオン】図書館の民営化の問題・元JCJ賞選考委員 清田義昭=出版部会
「学校現場で”汚染水”使うな」福島県議会がトンデモ意見書採択 主導したのは自民「統一協会」汚染県議
香港:基本法23条の立法に関する香港レイバーライツモニターの声明
Responding to ShotSpotter, Police Shoot at Child Lighting Fireworks
This post was written by Rachel Hochhauser, an EFF legal intern
We’ve written multiple times about the inaccurate and dangerous “gunshot detection” tool, Shotspotter. A recent near-tragedy in Chicago adds to the growing pile of evidence that cities should drop the product.
On January 25, while responding to a ShotSpotter alert, a Chicago police officer opened fire on an unarmed “maybe 14 or 15” year old child in his backyard. Three officers approached the boy’s house, with one asking “What you doing bro, you good?” They heard a loud bang, later determined to be fireworks, and shot at the child. Fortunately, no physical injuries were recorded. In initial reports, police falsely claimed that they fired at a “man” who had fired on officers.
In a subsequent assessment of the event, the Chicago Civilian Office of Police Accountability (“COPA”) concluded that “a firearm was not used against the officers.” Chicago Police Superintendent Larry Snelling placed all attending officers on administrative duty for 30 days and is investigating whether the officers violated department policies.
ShotSpotter is the largest company which produces and distributes audio gunshot detection for U.S. cities and police departments. Currently, it is used by 100 law enforcement agencies. The system relies on sensors positioned on buildings and lamp posts, which purportedly detect the acoustic signature of a gunshot. The information is then forwarded to humans who purportedly have the expertise to verify whether the sound was gunfire (and not, for example, a car backfiring), and whether to deploy officers to the scene.
ShotSpotter claims that its technology is “97% accurate,” a figure produced by the marketing department and not engineers. The recent Chicago shooting shows this is not accurate. Indeed, a 2021 study in Chicago found that, in a period of 21 months, ShotSpotter resulted in police acting on dead-end reports over 40,000 times. Likewise, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office concluded that ShotSpotter had “minimal return on investment” and only resulted in arrest for 1% of proven shootings, according to a recent CBS report. The technology is predominantly used in Black and Latinx neighborhoods, contributing to the over-policing of these areas. Police responding to ShotSpotter arrive at the scenes expecting gunfire and are on edge and therefore more likely to draw their firearms.
Finally, these sensors invade the right to privacy. Even in public places, people often have a reasonable expectation of privacy and therefore a legal right not to have their voices recorded. But these sound sensors risk the capture and leaking of private conversation. In People v. Johnson in California, a court held such recordings from ShotSpotter to be admissible evidence.
In February, Chicago’s Mayor announced that the city would not be renewing its contract with Shotspotter. Many other cities have cancelled or are considering cancelling use of the tool.
This technology endangers lives, disparately impacts communities of color, and encroaches on the privacy rights of individuals. It has a history of false positives and poses clear dangers to pedestrians and residents. It is urgent that these inaccurate and harmful systems be removed from our streets.