ShotSpotter: Recording Conversations?

[center442]

This was a front page story in my local liberal rag.

Two pertinent quotes from the story:

ShotSpotter officials say their acoustic sensors, set up to detect gunfire, are not designed to record conversations on the street. However, court documents show that audio surveillance helped provide specific details that enabled police to string together the sequence of events that ended in the fatal shooting of Pina, 20, in the South End.

In Massachusetts, minus a court order, the state wiretap law prohibits audio recording without both parties' consent. Police officers have used that statute at times to seize cellphones from people trying to record them on the street.

According to a spokesperson for ShotSpotter, their system can't record voices. Interesting, since the argument was apparently recorded prior to the gunshots being fired. I suppose that shouting on a public street isn't exactly what you should do if you want to maintain your privacy, but I wonder how many people are aware that the authorities have the ability to listen in to what people are saying on the street...and seem to be doing so.

Since the police recorded the conversation, it's apparently subject to the wiretap laws...so naturally, they had a warrant to do so. Oh, they didn't?

I'm so glad I don't live in a police state.

 

[LoginName]

<sarcasm> If you have nothing to hide, why would anyone object to this new technology that makes us all safer?</sarcasm>

 

[Len-2A Training]

Well I've been suspicious because for the past 30 years I have seen things attached to light fixtures that look like transponders to me. When I mentioned my suspicions to someone who worked for MSP Communications back then, all he did was smile and wouldn't answer my question (and this person was a fellow shooter and member of the gun club I belonged to back then).

Also take note of the wording from Shotspotter "are not designed to record conversations on the street" . . . this to me does NOT mean that they can't HEAR conversations. All this means to me is that the device doesn't come with an audio recorder. Also doesn't mean that a PD couldn't record the output.

I dare say that I seriously doubt that most PDs would give a damn about the wiretap law. I'm sure that they are convinced (as well as most MA judges) that it won't apply to official business by a PD, after all "it's for the children"!

 

[Terminator03]

Reminds me of that famous George Orwell book I had to read back in high school. "Big brother is always watching"! Little did we realize back then just how prophetic that novel would be!

 

[chris_1001]

First cameras, now possibly recording... Make me think on the movie Enemy of the State...

Orwell was right, just the year was a little off..

 

[Reptile]

Where have you guys been?

They already have streetlights that record audio and video.

http://www.intellistreets.com/

http://www.infowars.com/new-street-lights-to-have-homeland-security-applications/

 

[MisterHappy]

OK...as far as I know (IANAL and all that....) the MGLs prohibit surreptitious recordings....if you're obvious about it, and you're in a public place, there's no real problem with it.

Appropriate signage in all areas with coverage will do two things - let everyone know that they're on camera, and therefore, modify their behavior.

Here it is, no additional artwork needed:

 

[Spanz]

this explains the sytem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgAwdixodjw&feature=related

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

We are becoming England with every passing day. Shot Spotter, traffic cameras, audio recording. Where is Guy Fawkes when you need him?

 

[Rob Boudrie]

All this means to me is that the device doesn't come with an audio recorder.

That that means to me is that recording voices was not a design criteria, and they were not tested for conformance to specific specification for this. Shot Spotter's claim could be as relevant as pointing out that screwdrivers were designed for turning screws, not opening paint cans.

OK...as far as I know (IANAL and all that....) the MGLs prohibit surreptitious recordings....if you're obvious about it, and you're in a public place, there's no real problem with it.

Appropriate signage in all areas with coverage will do two things - let everyone know that they're on camera, and therefore, modify their behavior.

This is accurate, however, the term is "on microphone". No notice(or obviousness) is required for video only recording.

 

[inerlogic]

Well.... i haven't read the article (stopped getting that rag long ago) but this was discussed at work yesterday... Apparently, the guy's lawyers are claiming the wiretap law to get the voice evidence tossed... And the DA's office is saying shouting on a public street does not equal invasion of privacy.... (which i think everyone but LEOs already believe)

This'll be interesting


Sent from my HTC EVO 4G with Synergy+Godmode.

 

[Terminator03]

That that means to me is that recording voices was not a design criteria, and they were not tested for conformance to specific specification for this. Shot Spotter's claim could be as relevant as pointing out that screwdrivers were designed for turning screws, not opening paint cans.



This is accurate, however, the term is "on microphone". No notice(or obviousness) is required for video only recording.

Some excellent points, Rob, and I interpreted it the same way. It wasn't that the system doesn't have the ability, it is just that it wasn't the original intent of the design. I also disagree that it doesn't come with an audio recorder, Len. If that was true, then how would they be able to keep "proof" that a shot took place? I'm sure the system has some type of an oscilloscope display to show frequency range, but I have to think there would still be an audio component to that.

 

[Len-2A Training]

OK, I modify my comment to mean "voice recorder". I agree that it must have a recorder for the shot noise.

 

[MichaelJR]

We really could use a few righteous patriots right about now to stir things up a bit.

 

[center442]

Some Thoughts (Long)....

That that means to me is that recording voices was not a design criteria, and they were not tested for conformance to specific specification for this. Shot Spotter's claim could be as relevant as pointing out that screwdrivers were designed for turning screws, not opening paint cans.



This is accurate, however, the term is "on microphone". No notice(or obviousness) is required for video only recording.

Some excellent points, Rob, and I interpreted it the same way. It wasn't that the system doesn't have the ability, it is just that it wasn't the original intent of the design. I also disagree that it doesn't come with an audio recorder, Len. If that was true, then how would they be able to keep "proof" that a shot took place? I'm sure the system has some type of an oscilloscope display to show frequency range, but I have to think there would still be an audio component to that.

One of the reasons I posted this was that there seems to be a disconnect between what the company is saying and the evidence that Sutter's office has. The spokeswoman for ShotSpotter had this to say:

Lydia Barrett, a spokeswoman for ShotSpotter, said the sensors are designed to be activated only when they detect a loud booming sound with the acoustic signature of a gunshot.

"This is a very unusual circumstance if (the sensors) actually picked up any voices," Barrett said. "In particular, I can't ever remember in the history of our technology the sensors ever hearing a fight or some kind of argument going on."

When a sensor detects possible gunfire, it records the audio of the gunshots and relays information such as the caliber, location, time and number of shots to dispatchers and patrol officers within 20 to 30 seconds, Barrett said.

"It's an acoustic sensor. It's not a microphone, and it's only activated when a loud boom or bang happens," said Barrett, who added: "It's not listening. There is no listening."

Note the parts in bold. Now read the newspaper report. Unless I'm misreading what the paper says, Sutter's office claims to have an audio recording of the argument that occurred prior to the gunshot(s). If Sutter's claim is correct, someone sure as hell was listening....and recording.

I find that disturbing. I know that in public I have no expectation of privacy. If I'm carrying on a loud conversation on a public street, then yeah, it's going to be overheard. If there was a police officer near the scene who heard the argument and testified to what he heard in court, I'd have no problem with it.

What I do have a problem with is the idea that the "authorities" seem to be routinely listening (and recording) street conversations. Between the Patriot Act and related legislation our liberties seem to be taking a real butt-blasting. Suppose I get into a discussion with someone over the shortcomings of the Anointed One. Perhaps I get a little carried away and say some things that some would interpret as offensive or threatening...like, say, a quote from the Founding Fathers about refreshing the tree of liberty with blood.

Under normal circumstances, the conversation would end and we'd go on about our business. Now add in the government agent listening to that conversation who hears that comment. Do I get a visit from government agents? Am I now an enemy of the state? Am I a terrorist, to be held without trial?

A few years ago I would have dismissed concerns like this as paranoid and reccomended a tin foil helmet. Now I'm not so sure. This whole scenario reminds me of something from the pages of 1984.

One thing I am sure about is that this is not the America I grew up in.

 

[whatluck]

http://www.amazon.com/Productive-Home-Security-Prducts-Jammer/dp/B002PJ7PYS

+

http://www.123dj.com/packages/pa/1532.htm

Muahahaha!!!!

 

[MichaelJR]

Apparently the good folks of Arizona have had enough.

 

[inerlogic]

I'd been planning on making a google map with the SS locations..... I know there are 3 or 4 on rockdale ave between allen and cove.... One on dartmouth across from dunbar school.... Be interesting to see where the closest one to the argument is and see how far that shouting would have to travel to be picked up....
FWIW i live in the same area and the AR15 shots at the foxy (about a mile as the crow flies) woke me from a dead sleep.... (army training kicking in now doubt... ) so sound can def. travel in the city.....


Sent from my HTC EVO 4G with Synergy+Godmode.

 

[Jose]

Go yell F THE POLICE at the top of your lungs. Let us know what happens.

 

[jefftk]

Some excellent points, Rob, and I interpreted it the same way. It wasn't that the system doesn't have the ability, it is just that it wasn't the original intent of the design. I also disagree that it doesn't come with an audio recorder, Len. If that was true, then how would they be able to keep "proof" that a shot took place? I'm sure the system has some type of an oscilloscope display to show frequency range, but I have to think there would still be an audio component to that.

I'm inclined to believe the ShottSpotter spokesperson when they say the system was not designed to, and cannot, record speech audio. If there was speech recorded then I think the explanation that makes more sense is the that the city/state has some separate method of recording audio and they are just trying to use the ShotSpotter as misdirection or a scapegoat.

What purpose would 'proof of a shot taking place' serve? If they find no other evidence (casings, bullet holes, dead body, person with gun, etc..) then simply having recorded evidence of a shot taking place is of little value. And if other evidence is found, then it is far more valuable than an audio recording of a gun shot. What I'm trying to say is: if the prosecutor's case hinges on whether or not they can prove what the shotspotter identified actually was a gunshot - then they really don't have a case anyways (IANAL, but if I were on a jury that is probably how I would feel)

 

[inerlogic]

Go yell F THE POLICE at the top of your lungs. Let us know what happens.

thought about firing a caliber i don't own into the ground in my back yard.....
see how long it takes them to come knocking.. ".38? what .38? i don't own a .38... must've been the kids in that corner house...."

 

[Another_David]

One of the reasons I posted this was that there seems to be a disconnect between what the company is saying and the evidence that Sutter's office has....

Absolutely. The spokesperson is speaking in circles and varying the answers depending on who asks the questions. It seems that the systems is ALWAYS recording since the audio starts BEFORE the gun shot. Recordings may not always get saved or logged but the threshold for saving a sound clip is much lower than a gun shot so the "non events" can later be reviewed for quality control:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=15796

For forensic purposes, all loud, impulsive noises are logged by ShotSpotter systems, even if they do not trigger an automatic alert, in case those noises needed to be reviewed after-the-fact, he said.

"Once we determined that the system had registered a loud, impulsive, non-gunfire noise at the time of the crash, we assisted the East Palo Alto Police Department with the retrieval and storage of the audio captured by their system's ShotSpotter sensors for the seconds surrounding the impulsive noise (the crash).

EDIT:

And I wonder if the ACLU would be comfortable addressing these issues considering their anti-2A stance.

 

[center442]

http://www.amazon.com/Productive-Home-Security-Prducts-Jammer/dp/B002PJ7PYS

+

http://www.123dj.com/packages/pa/1532.htm

Muahahaha!!!!

A 2000WATT amplifier...hmmmm. Makes me wonder what would happen if someone recorded an actual gunshot and then played it back at high volume near one of the ShotSpotter devices.

I'm inclined to believe the ShottSpotter spokesperson when they say the system was not designed to, and cannot, record speech audio. If there was speech recorded then I think the explanation that makes more sense is the that the city/state has some separate method of recording audio and they are just trying to use the ShotSpotter as misdirection or a scapegoat.
What purpose would 'proof of a shot taking place' serve? If they find no other evidence (casings, bullet holes, dead body, person with gun, etc..) then simply having recorded evidence of a shot taking place is of little value. And if other evidence is found, then it is far more valuable than an audio recording of a gun shot. What I'm trying to say is: if the prosecutor's case hinges on whether or not they can prove what the shotspotter identified actually was a gunshot - then they really don't have a case anyways (IANAL, but if I were on a jury that is probably how I would feel)

The bold part is exactly what I suspect. If true, I'm not worried. They're only doing this in "troubled" areas and it's for everyone's safety and security.

Nothing wrong with trading a little liberty for security is there?

 

[atilla]

I'd been planning on making a google map with the SS locations.....

is it bad that after living in MA that when i saw you reference "SS" i thought of something completely different?

 

[CRSIII]

Apparently the good folks of Arizona have had enough.

That's england.

 

[jefftk]

Absolutely. The spokesperson is speaking in circles and varying the answers depending on who asks the questions. It seems that the systems is ALWAYS recording since the audio starts BEFORE the gun shot. Recordings may not always get saved or logged but the threshold for saving a sound clip is much lower than a gun shot so the "non events" can later be reviewed for quality control:

http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show_story.php?id=15796



EDIT:

And I wonder if the ACLU would be comfortable addressing these issues considering their anti-2A stance.

I don't think these two explanations are contradictory or indicate trying to talk in circles. In the article you just linked they said it records any loud, impulsive, noises. That does not mean it is ALWAYS recording. I'm sure the folks at ShotSpotter spent a lot of time testing their product by shouting at it and doing other various things. Their system was likely designed to ignore voice and shouting, but since those are difficult things to completely characterize its certainly possible that under the right circumstances the system could be triggered by someone shouting.

If that is what happened (the ShotSpotter system accidentally recorded the shouting) then I don't see how that recording could be admissible in court.

 

[Another_David]

I don't think these two explanations are contradictory or indicate trying to talk in circles. In the article you just linked they said it records any loud, impulsive, noises. That does not mean it is ALWAYS recording...

You obviously didn't read the article I posted which starts with:

First there is the sound of a plane's engines. Then a crackling noise, as though the plane has hit a power line. Then, crashing sounds, as parts of the aircraft landed on homes; a loud bang as the plane impacted with the ground; and a few seconds after the crash, people screaming as the plane fuselage skidded down Beech Street and plowed into walls and cars in the neighborhood.

The recording begins BEFORE the bang. The system is always recording to a buffer, then from this article it is apparently saving about 5 seconds before and 5 seconds after an "event". What triggers an event would be site specific based on each system and topography, so I'm not at all surprised that someone yelling triggered it.

If that is what happened (the ShotSpotter system accidentally recorded the shouting) then I don't see how that recording could be admissible in court.

I agree it shouldn't be admissible AND they should subsequently be removed.

Furthermore, I would bet the between Marketing and legal someone at the Shotdetector company long ago banned the word "microphone" from being used (they call them sensors ) since it would cause fear and legal implications if a company were hired by the .gov to install a microphone listening system, wouldn't it?

From an engineering standpoint: they are microphones, they are always listening, they are always recording, but what gets saved is unclear.

 

[jefftk]

You obviously didn't read the article

The system is always recording to a buffer, then from this article it is apparently saving about 5 seconds before and 5 seconds after an "event".

Yup, that sounds likely.

From an engineering standpoint: they are microphones, they are always listening, they are always recording, but what gets saved is unclear.

I think the only thing we are arguing about is the definition of "recording" and "saving" data.... my interpretation was recording=saving

If it keeps a constant window of 5 seconds in a volatile buffer then that is hardly the same thing as always saving data. You can't retrieve audio from any specific data and time that you want because it does not save/record everything (unless ShotSpotter has just been lying to everyone... I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt here).

If you think saving a window of data before and after an "event" constitutes a violation of privacy then that is a whole different argument. I don't think the people from ShotSpotter are being disingenuous or misleading when they claim that the system is not always listening and recording data (again, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt and assuming it works and was designed as advertised).

 

[pastera]

I do love the play on words though

All microphones are acoustic sensors but not all acoustic sensors are microphones (i.e. hydrophones)

A microphone is a specific type acoustic sensor designed to convert acoustic energy in the audible frequency range to an electrical signal.

By saying that the sensor is not a microphone they are NOT stating that it cannot pick up audible energy. The only thing that that statement says is that the sensor can most probably pick up energy well outside the audible range (the crack from a super sonic round).

It is awesome to be able to lie with only the truth (but maybe not the whole truth...)

Aaron

 

[Rob Boudrie]

. I'm sure the folks at ShotSpotter spent a lot of time testing their product by shouting at it and doing other various things.

I suspect that they also spent a lot of time reviewing the exact phrases used to answer questions about recording.

I read some interesting specs for a PD dash cam. It included "retroactive" recording - which simply meant that it is always recording to a circular buffer when turned on, and there is a certain non-trivial amount of time during which a "retroactive record" (ie, "do not discard" command may be entered to prevent recently captured info from being dumped). Also, with modern disk technology, the amount of video that may be saved to a $100 hard drive is impressive, and the amount of audio that will fit on such a drive is staggering.