80 rounds while Pres is out of town.
Shotspotter might just have a chance of working here, as the property is about 20 acres.
"Shot detected, coming from White House grounds..."
Subscriber Discussion
Shots Fired On White House Grounds During Shotspotter Test
U
Undisclosed #1
Aug 27, 2017Correction: Its not clear that the test is confined to just the White House grounds.
I apologize if this made me overestimate shotspotters chance of success.
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #2
Aug 27, 2017If the Secret Service publishes the results, which I doubt, it could be really good or really bad for ShotSpotter.
PS
Paul Shah
Aug 27, 2017U
Undisclosed #3
Aug 27, 2017Shotspotter went public in early June - their stock has been in the crapper ever since.
imo, even if their stuff wasn't plagued with false positives, the value of their product is negligible (at best) and further, sticking to their flawed subscription-based business model will eventually kill them off.
PS
Paul Shah
Aug 28, 2017U
Undisclosed #3
Aug 28, 2017I think there are two primary reasons that their subscription-based biz model is flawed:
1. Because the muni doesn't control the back-end, when a gun is fired the audio is transmitted to Shotspotter HQ in California where it is reviewed by a Shotspotter expert who then sends the 'hit' to the local PD... this process takes a minimum of 45 seconds and then add the PD response time and the gunman/woman would have to stick around at the scene for a full minute in order for the 'hit' to have any chance at all of being used to catch the gunman/woman.
2. Shotspotter charges an annual subscription fee to their muni customers that is based on the area covered.... there are sources that peg that cost at ~$100K/sq mile. For large municipalities, this could easily run into the $Millions/yr - money that could be better spent (imo) on stuff that actually makes inhabitants of these municipalities safer.
U
Undisclosed #1
Aug 28, 2017...this process takes a minimum of 45 seconds and then add the PD response time and the gunman/woman would have to stick around at the scene for a full minute in order for the 'hit' to have any chance at all of being used to catch the gunman/woman.
Still just getting to the scene quickly (and rendering aid), even if the gunwoman/man didn't stick around, would still increase the odds of catching the gunperson, thru interviewing possible witnesses and receiving classic advice such as "S/T/He/y went thattaway!"
U
Undisclosed #3
Aug 28, 2017It's not a zero-sum game though.... your argument assumes that people are getting shot in big cities without citizens alerting the PD.
Of course, Shotspotter will tell you that this is a problem.
Personally, I've never seen evidence that would lead me to believe that this is true.
PS
Paul Shah
Aug 28, 2017The cost was significantly more when the city owned the hardware. The false positives were also major problem, hence the need to have the signal reviewed by HQ.
I always heard the cost was $65k a square mile.
A couple agencies I spoke to have said the value of the system is more in the PR than actual quantifiable results.
U
Undisclosed #3
Aug 28, 2017"The cost was significantly more when the city owned the hardware. "
Define more: More up front, less per year? More in upfront sensor equipment charges? In annual subscriptions for the data?
My understanding is that even though they charge a recurring yearly subscription, this is for the sensor data, not the sensor hardware (which the muni pays for upfront). If I am wrong, please show me anything that states otherwise.
Note that the data captured by the audio sensors is owned by Shotspotter - and they don't release that data to anyone who doesn't pay for it. Even researchers trying to determine the actual value of their product.
That last sentence is one of the key drivers of my belief that their product has no actual value. If the data supported any kind of consensus that it has any true value, they would be falling all over themselves (AFTER 20 YEARS) to release the proof via industry magazine advertorial.
"A couple agencies I spoke to have said the value of the system is more in the PR than actual quantifiable results."
I don't find this hard to believe at all - since they have never produced quantifiable data that shows their technology solves an actual problem.
That is some very expensive PR.
U
Undisclosed #1
Aug 28, 2017It's slightly off the typical use case for ShotSpotter, which is usually deployed throughout a large urban area.
Since it involves the Secret Service, we would imagine that it would involve the protection of president and other family and government officials.
In which most scenarios, at least in my my mind don't come down to needing to detect and triangulate gunshots to save the day.
Sure, Lee Harvey Oswald might have been apprehended a little earlier, but...
You would think that when the shots ring out, the die is cast.
U
Undisclosed #3
Aug 28, 2017"You would think that when the shots ring out, the die is cast."
I think this technology is a product desperately in search of an actual problem....
"Through their own words..... they will be exposed. They got a solid case of the Emperor's New Clothes." - Sinead O'Connor
New discussion
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.
Newest discussions