Having perfect knowledge of evidence in trials would be great, but this is too great a cost. Erich Honecker would've paid dearly for such technology. Putting the anecdote about saving a kid's life in Milwaukee makes it more difficult to oppose, but the fact of the matter is many millions of people have died at the hands of such villains as would abuse this system. If the shot finding technology was physically unable to be abused, I'd endorse it in a heartbeat, but it comes with too much risk. It's a trade I just can't make.

Perps can simulate a gunfight by firing hundreds of rounds in one area, all available units respond, all the while their cohorts are robbing stores in another.

It's an amazing piece of technology.

They played back recordings for us of things like gunshots, exploding tansformers, fireworks, and the slamming of a pick-up truck tailgate.

Anything over a certain decibel level that fits a range of profiles is displayed, recorded, and identified by the computer. Anything unidentified is left for human operators or police on the scene to identify.

I didn't ask them if they had a record of the time I used dry ice to explode water bottles in my back yard.

While I don't think this will do much to reduce crime, I do think it will save lives, by reducing the amount of time it takes for first responders to show-up at the scene of gunshots.

I'd be buying cases of firecrackers. Civil disobedience may be the only solution.
Dispatch, we've got 142 shots fired.

I think this opens the door for the police and courts to regard any sound detectable from a public place as fair game for surveillance, and admissible in court. I don't want to go down a path that ends up with Aural Surveillance Devices keeping a continuous eye on us. It's bad enough having cameras everywhere.

no mention of Z or L.

Also bear in mind here that these devices cannot actually hear shots 2000+ miles away as the article implies. In reality, the operator[/u was 2000 miles away from the listening device.

All these devices are are highly sensitive directional microphones that have software that can detect the sound profile of gunshots, and can differentiate them from other "bang"-like noises.

These things were developed for soldiers to use in urban environments, so that they can detect and zero in on sniper fire.

I don't have a problem with police using these devices at all.

Guns fired in public can be heard and recorded and investigated.

Or do you for one, welcome our new electronic Overlords?

"... developed for soldiers to use in urban environments...". OUR urban environment? Yeah, fuck Posse Commitatus, We're talking Public Order here.

We are talking about law enforcement using a tool developed for the military to detect gunshots in civilian areas.

I fail to see how detecting and responding to gunshots can possibly be a bad thing. Especially since the the device can easily determine the location of the shots and if that location happens to be, say, a shooting range, then no alert need be raised. But when the shot happens inside city limits, where the discharge of firearms is illegal except in emergencies, then it would be extremely beneficial to dispatch the police to such events.

This is no different than the cameras mounted on police cars that automatically scan license plates that come into view for outstanding legal issues.

i.e., a binding statement in law that the authority to use this particular technology does not extend to any other use of audio sensing devices that doesn't exclusively detect gunshots.

Sure, who can't agree that tracking gunshots is a good use of technology for safety. Which is why it will be abused, "Public Safety".

I fear for the inevitable mis-use of it. It just smacks so damn much of Big Brother to my thinking. Like England and their 4 cameras for every person. I'm not a fan of the license plate cameras or the face-scanning technology, either.

Think again!

a Chevy Volt.

No OnStar here, me friend, not here, no way...

You don't have any expectation of privacy when you are in public.

Police are certainly empowered to record any sound I make in public (or in private), but only in connection with a bonafide investigation or traffic stop, or if I give consent. Even outdoors, I have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" with regard to audio recording.

A private corporation feeding at the public trough. They sound a lot like alarm companies that call the cops for you. Those assholes ate a burden on public resources, and this bunch is no less incentivized.

If an alarm goes off, the police are supposed to respond.

Hell, how many people in this forum want everyone to be disarmed and solely rely on the police for protection? Well, that means if your burglar alarm goes off, you need police!

There's not much chance of actually catching the shooter. When the cops get there they'll find a wounded victim or a dead body next to a shell casing. This system will be installed in urban areas where there are already lots of ears. Most of the time somebody will call the cops anyway who will arrived and find the same thing. The only difference is the taxpayers will be paying somebody to do what most people do anyway. It's classic disaster capitalism.

Plus, much like microstamping, it would be incredibly easy to spoof the system for which the taxpayers will also pay. Its a win win for the bloodsuckers who sell and run the system.

I worked for an alarm company in college. False alarms were so bad they started writing tickets for them. Who would get the ticket for these false alarms? It would be a cash cow. And that's not to mention possible abuse of the technology.

There's not much chance of actually catching the shooter. When the cops get there they'll find a wounded victim or a dead body next to a shell casing.

Even THAT is worthwhile. You now can start emergency services rolling to the precise location as soon as shots are fired.

This system will be installed in urban areas where there are already lots of ears. Most of the time somebody will call the cops anyway who will arrived and find the same thing. The only difference is the taxpayers will be paying somebody to do what most people do anyway. It's classic disaster capitalism.

This system never sleeps, is never ambivalent, and is extremely precise in locating the shot.

All it takes is a few cars backfiring and idiots just shooting in the air to spoof the technology. Not to mention fireworks.

The system that never sleeps is worthless without sufficient emergency services personell to respond. Without enough cops it will quickly get de-prioritized. But if you took the money it cost and used it to hire more police officers the added deterrence would have a much more positive effect.

More cops on the beat deter crime and build community relations. The company that sells the service just profits from it, and it's wrong to profit from human misery.

at http://csganalysis.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/shotspotter_efficacystudy_gls8_45p_let_2011-07-08_en.pdf

and I could support it being used in some municipalities, with restrictions. That said, erecting microphones all over town doesn't do much to improve already shitty police-community relations. When completely innocent people don't want to call 911 because they're suspicious of the police, there's something seriously wrong.

All it takes is a few cars backfiring and idiots just shooting in the air to spoof the technology. Not to mention fireworks.

These devices can tell the acoustic signature of gunfire as compared to things like cars backfiring or fireworks.

People shooting into the air, however, will get pinpointed and will trigger an investigation, just as you would want.

Complaining about these kinds of devices is like complaining about the police using two-way-radios.

And people shooting in the air can be gone before the cops can even begin to think about starting an investigation.

I am less concerned with the police having the use of the technology, although I think there is ample potential for abuse. My concern is that it is a cash cow for some corporation that doesn't have to be responsible for failures in their system. Nothing is better than people policing people. Unfortunately, there is no money in paying people to work, but there's plenty of money in producing technological gadgets that offer the illusion of progress when they are actually designed to profit from failure. This technology will not reduce crime or catch criminals. The bad guys can adjust tactics to defeat it as it is being installed, but by then the taxpayers will be contractually obligated to pay for it and it will be too late.

The police using two way radios aren't relaying their messages through a third (profit making) party

There is nothing wrong with using contracted services. I'm not against the police running their own gunshot-tracking network, but I bet a lot of them contract out a lot more of their IT work, even if to other city departments. Same for the garbage collection.

And people shooting in the air can be gone before the cops can even begin to think about starting an investigation.

So because criminals might run away from the scene of the crime we should ignore technology that allows us to pinpoint when and where it happens instantaneously?

The rest I'm not going to bother to quote, it's just a new spin on the old Luddite theme. Assuming this technology works as advertised, it's a great step forward in public safety.

Imagine a device invented, like some kind of satellite or drone surveillance, even if contacted through a third party, that could identify fires. Would you be against that, too?

And if instantaneous pinpoint tracking doesn't help reduce crime, it isn't worth the money.

Privatization of public services is a serious issue in this country. Why do you think the Republicans want to strangle government? There's a huge market to exploit there. Would you like you fire and police privatized? If you think it will never happen, just keep letting corporate America chew away at it.

I don't like microphones on light poles any more than cameras.

I'm also against profit from human misery.

People helping people is best though.

Responding to every "shots fired" would bankrupt any town and tie up forces that could be addressing legitimate concerns. I doubt many cities would be interested in this, besides those run by Bloomberg's goon squad.

Responding to every "shots fired" would bankrupt any town and tie up forces that could be addressing legitimate concerns. I doubt many cities would be interested in this, besides those run by Bloomberg's goon squad.

I cannot imagine why you would not want police responding to every single occasion guns are fired in places where they are not supposed to be fired.

It seems to me this is one of the highest priorities of police work - responding to violence.

Big, densely populated urban areas may benefit from this. My remark was a result of imagining it in my own town, where it would be stupidly impractical. Thanks for giving me pause to take a second look.

The shots are not actually being heard from 2,200 miles away. The shots are detected in the city using acoustic sensors, and then that data is transmitted to a monitoring station that happens to be 2,200 miles away. The monitoring station could be on the other side of the planet for all that it matters, or just down the street.

Who comes up with these headlines?