I'm not commenting on whether it's a lie / conspiracy / etc. I don't think I'm qualified to guess. However, I can think of something immediately which innocently explains the facts at hand.
The system records -- arbitrarily guessed -- 30 seconds of audio at a go. It then passes that to the processor for analysis. While it's being analyzed, it records the next 30 seconds' worth. If nothing is found, then the first 30 seconds gets deleted. The next 30 seconds gets put into processing and a third 30 seconds starts recording. The second 30 seconds yield something suspicious at second 19. That gets transmitted to the cops. The third 30 seconds has nothing suspicious and gets deleted, and so on. That means you can capture a number of seconds of audio before the event while simultaneously being able to claim in weasel-speak "we are not making constant recording". Capisce?
For some reason, I keep trying to type "bugger" instead of "buffer"shoutingboyOctober 21 2010, 23:32:45 UTC
Keep in mind that whatever the facts are, what we're seeing is being filtered through a few layers of non-technical people (the PR person, the reporter, maybe editors...). Even without deliberate obfuscation, that's more than enough to confuse things. I go by Heinlein's Razor: Don't attribute to malice what can be plausibly explained by stupidity.
Anyway, what you quote specifically says the sensors are triggered by gunshots--not the microphones, not the recordings, the sensors. So I can easily imagine something like this
( ... )
I know they used shotspotter data in the investigation of the plane crash in EPA. You can argue a plane hitting a power transmission tower would create "a loud, impulsive sound".
I've worked with three people who are currently at Shotspotter. I could ask questions if you like.
Ok, you guys do point out how the timing isn't really all that suspicious and that there are several ways the audio could be buffered in an unobjectionable manner. I got that, and that wasn't really my concern - it was just what made me wonder what was being lost in the oversimplification
( ... )
If they say the hardware can't do something, which it can do, and that something allows for some fairly invasive abuses of privacy, then there is something to be suspicious of.
It may not be being used now in truly abusive ways, but a small tweak to the programming could let it be used in such ways, if the capability is already there; which the court case implies (though it's not proven. Perhaps the murder took place on a roof, in close proximity to the mike, we don't know).
Comments 7
Reply
The system records -- arbitrarily guessed -- 30 seconds of audio at a go. It then passes that to the processor for analysis. While it's being analyzed, it records the next 30 seconds' worth. If nothing is found, then the first 30 seconds gets deleted. The next 30 seconds gets put into processing and a third 30 seconds starts recording. The second 30 seconds yield something suspicious at second 19. That gets transmitted to the cops. The third 30 seconds has nothing suspicious and gets deleted, and so on. That means you can capture a number of seconds of audio before the event while simultaneously being able to claim in weasel-speak "we are not making constant recording". Capisce?
Reply
Anyway, what you quote specifically says the sensors are triggered by gunshots--not the microphones, not the recordings, the sensors. So I can easily imagine something like this ( ... )
Reply
I've worked with three people who are currently at Shotspotter. I could ask questions if you like.
Reply
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
If they say the hardware can't do something, which it can do, and that something allows for some fairly invasive abuses of privacy, then there is something to be suspicious of.
It may not be being used now in truly abusive ways, but a small tweak to the programming could let it be used in such ways, if the capability is already there; which the court case implies (though it's not proven. Perhaps the murder took place on a roof, in close proximity to the mike, we don't know).
Reply
Leave a comment