Interesting how takes on ShotSpotter vary depending on the context and situation. In San Jose it was used to help enforce rules against firing guns in the air. In these cases there would usually be reports to police, but finding the shooter was extremely difficult. With ShotSpotter it became possible to identify locations on individual lots. Using this information enforcement became much more effective and there was a huge reduction in celebratory gunfire. In a large number of these cases no charges needed to be filed as gun owners were often uninformed, apologetic, and compliant. From the start of this program it was explicitly stated that ShotSpotter information would only be used by constables on patrol and would not be admitted as evidence in court. System coverage was based on where crimes were being reported. That such criteria overlap with race and class makes sense without necessarily being connected.
It would be interesting to know if there might be some reasonable bounds that could be used to enable ShotSpotter to be used without being considered intrusive surveillance. Having information about gunshots or possible gunshots can be extremely useful for responders who need to understand where events are happening. This does not necessarily mean that the system has to be open to other uses, especially recording and replay of audio.
It would be interesting to know if there might be some reasonable bounds that could be used to enable ShotSpotter to be used without being considered intrusive surveillance. Having information about gunshots or possible gunshots can be extremely useful for responders who need to understand where events are happening. This does not necessarily mean that the system has to be open to other uses, especially recording and replay of audio.