Jackson Free Press

I had an opportunity recently to watch a demonstration of the $400,000 'Shotspotter' technology that the Mayor wants to bring to Jackson. Essentially, Shotspotter is a network of surveillance cameras and microphones that are supposed to detect the location of nearby gunfire. When a gun is fired, the microphones 'triangulate' the shot's origin, coordinates are sent to the Jackson Police Department, and Shotspotter surveillance cameras swivel to video the location.

Judging by the demonstration, Shotspotter is impressive technology. But as with other high-priced surveillance technology the J.P.D. has spread across Jackson, city officials were unclear about what policies, if any, would be created to ensure that the technology is used in a manner consistent with citizens' rights.

For example, Shotspotter microphones are able to detect nearby conversations. Without formal policies prohibiting eavesdropping—and independent oversight to ensure those policies are being followed—citizens have no way of knowing that the technology isn't being used to listen to and record private conversations.

When the Shotspotter microphones triangulate a target, will nearby citizens be considered suspects merely because they live within the triangle? If so, what will be the J.P.D. policy for approaching and questioning those individuals?

Furthermore, without a system of independent oversight, citizens will have no way of knowing if the Shotspotter system is actually working or if the city is simply squandering needed tax dollars. (How many new officers could be hired for $400,000? How many good cops could get raises?)

When I asked about the need for such policies and independent oversight, I was effectively told by the Shotspotter representative and the J.P.D.'s Chief Anderson, "Just trust us". Not a good answer in a country whose government is meant to be transparent and whose citizens don't merely trust government not to violate our rights, we monitor our government to ensure it's not violating them. Americans—as Ronald Reagan once famously remarked—"Trust, but verify".

The truth is, I hope the Shotspotter technology works. I hope it reduces violent crime and makes our neighborhoods safer. I hope no one's rights are violated by the surveillance technology. I hope all of this as you probably do. But should we simply trust Chief Anderson and Mayor Melton when they tell us that all is well? No; of course not. We'll be happy to hear their report, but then, as responsible citizens, we'll demand to see the data ourselves. We'll trust, but verify.

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.

Previous Commentsshow

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

pikersam

Sep 25 2007

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?

golden eagle

Sep 25 2007

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.

LatashaWillis

Sep 25 2007

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

Lady Havoc

Sep 25 2007

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?

LatashaWillis

Sep 25 2007

Good point, Lady Havoc. I agree.

Brent Cox

Sep 25 2007

"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.

LawClerk

Sep 25 2007