• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Web of sensors helps police home in on shooters

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

The largest ShotSpotter installation is in Washington, where it covers 16 square miles. Besides locating gunshots, the system also proved two off-duty D.C. officers did not fire first when they killed a 14-year-old boy in 2007.


But D.C. is a gun free zone, how could there be any shooting going on?
 

Task Force 16

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
2,615
Location
Lobelville, Tennessee, USA
imported post

I wonder how many times the police will have to respond to someone hammering on a FIY project? Or the occassional car engine backfire.

Someone could record gunfire on a CD and play it through their souped up car stereo, drive around playing the CD, and have thecops running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
 

bugly

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
imported post

"a system of strategically placed acoustic sensors linked to a computer designed to help police..."

Read that; Microphones capable of listening in on private conversations.....
Same thing happened near here in Seattle, we were told that the traffic cameras were not high enough resolution to be used as surveillance equipment, but during the WTO riots, they were able to see the name badge number of a police officer half a mile away, by "adjusting" the camera angle. B.S.!!!!!!!!!
This is just another opportunity to try to control the population by snooping into their daily lives.
I am vehemently against any and all government intrusion and this is clearly a violation of the 4th Amendment.
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

bugly wrote:
"a system of strategically placed acoustic sensors linked to a computer designed to help police..."

Read that; Microphones capable of listening in on private conversations.....


Not even close. Don't be a conspiracy nut. There's a massive difference between a "microphone" like a glass break sensor, a knock sensor, or a gunshot sensor and an actual microphone that records sounds.
 

Phssthpok

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
1,026
Location
, ,
imported post

Actually he's QUITE close, as evidenced by a SAMPLE from ShotSpotter's own website.

Sounds an awful lot like an 'audio recording' one might obtain from an actual 'microphone' to me....how about the rest of you?:uhoh:
 

AWDstylez

Banned
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
2,785
Location
, Connecticut, USA
imported post

Phssthpok wrote:
Actually he's QUITE close, as evidenced by a SAMPLE from ShotSpotter's own website.

Sounds an awful lot like an 'audio recording' one might obtain from an actual 'microphone' to me....how about the rest of you?:uhoh:



Yea those 140+ decible gun shots sounded like a two year old tapping his finger on a piece of wood. You could definitely record conversations with that. :quirky Where was all the background noise?
 

Pagan

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
629
Location
Gloucester, Virginia, USA
imported post

Task Force 16 wrote:
Someone could record gunfire on a CD and play it through their souped up car stereo, drive around playing the CD, and have thecops running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
Thay would be extremely cruel and funny at the same time:lol:
 

Legba

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2007
Messages
1,881
Location
, ,
imported post

This is probably the thin end of the wedge of some comprehensive surveillance system like that have in British cities. The only reassurance is that I doubt most departments have the personnel/rescources to monitor a lot of cameras/microphones to the point that this would be really Orwellian. It does nothing to prevent crime in any case, and it's small consolation that they might more readily catch a killer with these -after the fact, of course.

-ljp
 

bugly

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
imported post

...and what happens when the police get so used to having the "sensors" do the spotting for them they won't respond to a shooting if there was nothing detected? such as the case where there was a silencer used? yes, i know silencers are illegal, but the people using them to shoot and rob other people probably don't care about that.

kinda like the "crash sensors" in some high-end vehicles, the driver doesn't even have to be careful anymore 'cause the car will avoid accidents automatically.

not conspiracy theory anymore. after the WTO riots, we all got a taste of what the local sherriff has stockpiled and the tools he has at his beck and call. there were things used that even the active-duty military wasn't allowed to have, but Barney Fife had 'em. That was one time the police were totally out of control, a co-worker (at the time) of mine was assaulted by an officer five blocks away from the riots, on his way to work. he was dressed in a suit and carrying a briefcase. the police tackled him and maced him for NO reason whatever.

please don't take this as LEO bashing, the seattle police and king county sherriff just got a liittle ovrezealous on that one and a lot of people are still having trouble trusting them because of it. as far as the "sound sensors" are concerned, there is always a way to turn up the gain on things like that, trust me, i was in the Army in the 80's and some of the intelligence gathering stuff that was available even then would blow your mind today.

How about making sure the police actually get called out to investigate things when 911 is dialed instead of us being told they're too busy or they don't respond unless they see it happen? this has been said by 911 operators before....
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
imported post

These are in the same vein as CCTV, like what is in Europe, and has been proven and admitted by the same people that pushed for CCTV, as not preventing ONE CRIME in all the years they've had it. It makes the sheep "feel" safer though, so it must have been worth the millions of pounds it took to install all these cameras and have big brother watching over them. Never mind that this "feeling" of safety came at a huge cost to liberty. I imagine it will be much the same here with this "feel good" solution to a non existent problem.
 

SpringerXDacp

New member
Joined
May 12, 2006
Messages
3,341
Location
Burton, Michigan
imported post

bugly wrote:
SNIP
How about making sure the police actually get called out to investigate things when 911 is dialed instead of us being told they're too busy or they don't respond unless they see it happen? this has been said by 911 operators before....
Bugly, does this apply to"MWAG" calls as well?
 

bugly

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2009
Messages
310
Location
Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
imported post

SpringerXDacp wrote:
bugly wrote:
SNIP
How about making sure the police actually get called out to investigate things when 911 is dialed instead of us being told they're too busy or they don't respond unless they see it happen? this has been said by 911 operators before....
Bugly, does this apply to"MWAG" calls as well?
don't know, never called or been called on for that reason, if a MWAG comes to my house, he'll be met with a proper greeting. I don't make an ass of myself in public, especially when carrying, so it doesn't come up, at least in that realm, I have been fortunate. It seems the "jedi mind trick" works, if you don't call attention to yourself, most people wouldn't notice if you were carrying a .50 quad.
 

bohdi

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
1,753
Location
Centreville, Virginia, USA
imported post

http://mpdc.dc.gov/mpdc/cwp/view,a,1238,q,541201,mpdcNav_GID,1545,mpdcNav,%7C31748%7C.asp

The program in DC has expanded from the original 19 cameras since it's inception. I personally visited the JOCC and saw the system live in 2003, it was pretty impressive. The DC PD go to great lengths explaining the capabilities of the system and they don't actually record video, unless under extreme conditions. They also currently are not integrating the video from the cameras with Shot Spotteralarms so that the two systems communicate with each other, but it can be done. The big problem with any video surveillance system (active or passive) is how do you tell someone who's late trying to catch a plane/bus/cab/train (panting heavily, acting nervous, sweating) from someone carrying a hidden explosive device?
 
Top