Subscriber Discussion

"Over Shotspotter’S 20-Year History, There Has Been No Independent Analysis Of Its Effectiveness."

U
Undisclosed #1
Oct 16, 2017

Question:  Why does Cambridge, MA even have Shotspotter?

Answer:  Because it was made 'free' to them initially - some say simply to avoid procurement procedures that are in place to ensure that local govts are spending their money within oversight.

Now, Cambridge slips a $50K payment to Shotspotter into their FY2018 budget - all nice and legal-like.  Except this practice appears to be designed specifically to evade oversight.

You decide.

(1)
(2)
PS
Paul Shah
Nov 16, 2017

Not sure of this more PR, but I'm sure it will help it Shotspotters expansion

CPD Supt. Johnson set to announce record-low shootings in Englewood

U
Undisclosed #1
Nov 16, 2017

not sure?

let's break down what the article really says then....

====================

CPD

Englewood District - murders from 1/1-10/31

2015 - 26

2016 - 308

2017 - 158

====================

Please keep these numbers in mind when attempting to determine causality - which is exactly what Supt Johnson claims to be doing in his upcoming announcement.

Also please keep in mind that ShotSpotter has historically - and primarily - used testimonials of similarly placed LE execs to market the effectiveness of their solution to new municipalities... and will even discount said solutions for those that market to other municipalities for them.  Do you see the conflict of interest here?

OK, back to what CPD Supt Johnson is apparently going to be announcing soon:

Using statistics from only 2 years (2016 and 2017) and ignoring the significance of the far lower number from 2015 - they are happily claiming that the reduction in murders in this district from 2016 to 2017 can only be explained by the introduction of Shotspotter.

Do you accept that?

Or do you see that only considering two consecutive years of data - and ignoring data from previous years - appears obviously biased?

 “I don’t think there is any other plausible explanation for what we’re seeing,” said Roseanna Ander, founding executive director of the Crime Lab."

really?  no other explanation?

not even 1?

This is absolutely PR - entirely unscientific.... which is exactly what Shotspotter's expansion scheme has been based upon, in absence of any scientific data that proves their technologies value.  

[EDIT] Also - I notice that there were no elevated arrest numbers for gun use given by Supt Johnson which might actually show some correlation to the use of Shotspotter and the lowering of the number of murders in that district.

Why is that? 

(3)
(2)
UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #4
Dec 15, 2017

Article in the Atlantic covers this very topic with similar line of thinking and some supporting analysis ...

Threading a City with Gunfire Sensors might not make it any safer

UE
Undisclosed End User #2
Nov 16, 2017

Tin foil hat time:

Sooo they've been rolling out microphones throughout populated areas which may or may not be justified as 'gun prone'... and while I have no doubt it probably DOES do gunshot detection... are the microphones being used for any other purpose?

And lets look at the model - get a grant for a $50K rollout... in terms of university or city spending, it's hardly a drop in the bucket. I can't see the company making much of a profit....but they want to put their microphones EVERYWHERE!

Just sayin' - if ever there was something that could be dual purposed for the wrong reasons... this is it.

Who says Echelon is just monitoring phone calls....?

 

U
Undisclosed #1
Nov 16, 2017

tin foil hat theories notwithstanding....

my concern is the flim flam involved in their expansion.

they sell their solutions in a non-traditional manner (cough cough - incentivized efforts from high ranking LE execs from other cities) and have never been able - in all these years - to offer any empirical evidence that their tech lowers the use of guns and/or murders.

they seek (and have existed for more than 2 decades as a result of) funding from DHS grants and other municipal expenditures by using (and rewarding) these well-placed high-ranking LE personnel in 'captured' municipalities to hawk their stuff to similarly positioned people in 'target' municipalities.

All - again - with no empirical evidence.

So now, in the 2 decade absence of this empirical evidence, they are going to trot out Supt Johnson and his 2 year look at what may or may not be obvious to anyone?

puuuuulease.

 

(1)
PS
Paul Shah
Nov 16, 2017

To your point, Bill Bratton Just joined their Board of Directors. 

In terms of high ranking LE.... isn't this what Motorola and Taser do as well?

(2)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #1
Nov 16, 2017

Chief of Police, City A:  "Hey Chief, these new Motorola radios work really well for us in City A, and we are able to better communicate during crisis events because of this new technology... I think that you might have similar success in your city of B."

Chief of Police City B: "Thanks Chief... if these have performed for you as you say then I need to get us some of that stuff."

No issue with this type of marketing.

While it uses the same sales channel, the pitch is at least based on evidence.  Or at least Chief A's anecdotal rendition of evidence.  The point being, the effectiveness can be measured.... and if Chief B gets him some Motorola radios and he determines Chief A is a big fat liar, then steps can be taken by Chief B to rectify his/her mistake.

Shotspotter has always made the specific claim that their tech lowers the number of shootings/murders in covered areas - and they have never made any real attempt at proving this claim.

If they only claimed that their tech can distinguish between a gunshot and other loud sounds, I would have no beef with what they do.  But claiming that their tech enables the 'lowering' of anything other than their customers bank accounts remains - for 2 decades - unsupported. 

If this 'announcement' is the best they got, well then what does that tell you?

   

 

U
Undisclosed #3
Nov 16, 2017
IPVMU Certified

All - again - with no empirical evidence.

Although in the case of Cambridge, they have a decent chance at claiming a gunfire-incident reduction of 50% or more, year over year.  

All they need is reduce the incidents from 2 to 1 ;)

(2)
PS
Paul Shah
Nov 17, 2017
U
Undisclosed #1
Nov 17, 2017

The Shotspotter pilot program part starts being described at the ~12:03 mark.

Captain Jim LaRochelle shows up to explain the technology at ~12:55... and proceeds to read, pretty much verbatim, the talking points from Shotspotter literature.

They are conducting a 1 year pilot program which is funded by grants from UN-Reno Cooperative Extension and the Friends of LVPD Foundation.

I'm sure all included parties in Las Vegas who are involved in trying to make their city safe have the best intentions.  Which is the part that I find the most sad.... they are trying to do good.

However, with zero empirical evidence that the Shotspotter tech reduces shootings/murders, I'm afraid that this well-intentioned funding will end up being wasted instead of being spent on things that have been actually proven to work.

 

 

 

(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #3
Nov 17, 2017
IPVMU Certified

I'm afraid that this well-intentioned funding will end up being wasted instead of being spent on things that have been actually proven to work.

It could be worse

(1)
(4)
PS
Paul Shah
Dec 05, 2017

This is echos your points. Granted it's a report from a short seller, but he has some interesting points

http://moxreports.com/1938-2/

U
Undisclosed #1
Dec 05, 2017

wow.  that article - even from a short - is a devastating and well-supported indictment of SSTI.

My initial argument included a stipulation (apparently foolhardy) that their tech actually worked - and I was focused more on the flim-flam component (which this author also crushes them on in his piece).

Based on the copious evidence presented by that article, I will have to rescind that stipulation.

It's the day after lockup date though - and I don't see sign of a massive sell-off yet.  This may be because the stock has tanked heavily in the last ~month.... from their 52 wk high of 19.65 on Nov 9th, to their current 13.50 - barely above the IPO price in Jun 2017.

 

(1)
(1)
U
Undisclosed #1
Dec 22, 2017

Captain Jim LaRochelle has gone missing...

U
Undisclosed #3
Dec 22, 2017
IPVMU Certified

If he’s incapicitated, he could try firing a round in the air so we could shotspot him.

(1)
PS
Paul Shah
Dec 22, 2017

They just found him 

U
Undisclosed #1
Dec 22, 2017

mysterious - no report where he was before they found him...

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #5
Dec 22, 2017

I'm a vendor partner for one of ShotSpotter's quasi-competitors (who left the outdoor gunshot detection market because it doesn't work all that well in this application, BTW) ShotSpotter is a flawed system because it's a flawed methodology. 

A perimeter detection system for gunshots 'outdoors' is the best application, not a line of microphones with an API to the closest PTZ camera to just listen for gunfire. It's not accurate, and it still requires a human being to make a judgment call, and it still relies on only one method of detection. 

 

 

 

PS
Paul Shah
Dec 22, 2017

Do you know how much it helped when shotspotter created 24x7 monitoring center? Didn't that eliminate the false positives the police departments would get? 

As far as the PTZ cameras, do they actually have implementations like this? I've yet to see any results or actual use cases with them. Only marketing fluff 

 

 

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #5
Dec 22, 2017

To your first point: honestly, unsure. I've only heard that monitoring has been sourced back to the local PD with the contract. Not unlike, say, red light cameras. 

 

To the second point: It looks like it's done through VMS integration. So it's not even native to the ShotSpotter sensor. They just integrate with Genetec/OnSSI, etc, and pass the PTZ commands that way. 

U
Undisclosed #1
Dec 22, 2017

Are you calling Cincinnati Assistant Police Chief (and Lieutenant Colonel) Paul Neudigate a liar?  Cuz I am.  : )

He says:

"We've seen that, uh, it is definitely helping us identify areas that were not on our radar"

and:

"Within about a minute's time, they're responding.  Compared to if you hear gunfire and you pick up the phone and call 911 - we're probably looking at about a 4 minute response."

The first quote seems ridiculous on it's face.  You have rampant gunfire in certain areas of your city and you didn't even know it before deploying Shotspotter?

The second quote is straight up flim-flam.  He's a bought and paid for shill.

Shotspotter requires it's own techs in California to first receive the alert, then examine the audio, then alert the local PD.  Shotspotter themselves say that this process takes on average 'about a minute'.  There is no such delay when you 'hear gunfire and you pick up the phone and call 911'.

Response time - which Lieutenant Colonel Paul Neudigate assigns to the phone-in alert - is ignored in his comment about 'within about a minute's time, they are responding'.  If someone called it in, they 'could be responding' in well under a full minute.

(1)
UI
Undisclosed Integrator #5
Dec 22, 2017

That's a wonderful PR piece, but you already hit the nail on the head. 

 

That's not to say gunshot detection as a whole is faulty - our partner's INDOOR gunshot detectors work great and legitimately eliminates the issues ShotSpotter has, but the best application for that is an active shooter event in a building, and to make a hard target *harder*, not this pipe dream. 

U
Undisclosed #1
Dec 22, 2017

That is good information... and as someone who hasn't had that much experience with gunshot detection providers, the technical aspects regarding what the products purport to do is certainly something that should be studied to see if the claims they make are actually true.  I would be interested in hearing your experience and why this doesn't really work outdoors - at least by how Shotspotter is deployed.

My beef is with Shotspotter's go-to-market strategy.  As a skeptic, I have to wonder why Shotspotter 'owns' all of their data - and then leases this data to their customer users.  As a practical matter, this means that the customer is prevented from releasing any actual data because they don't own it themselves - and Shotspotter seems pretty eager to keep their own cumulative data hidden... why is that?

Also, even if their stuff did exactly what they say it does technically.... what actual value does it bring to the table?

My opinion - as stated above - is that the data that their product produces (assuming it technically works, which you disavow) is not of any actual value to their own LE customers.

How come the LE proponents of Shotspotter never point to increased numbers of arrests for gunslinging?  One would think that if the product actually helped them locate and prosecute the gunslingers that this would be collaborative evidence that Shotspotter had value.

Instead, we always see the bought and paid for shills touting the need for future spending on a product that they can't prove (and have never tried to prove) does anything positive for their communities.

 

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #5
Dec 22, 2017

Those are great points - let me speak on what I know first. 

The indoor gunshot detection system I work with has two features which give it the functional accuracy we're discussing:

It uses two different factors to determine if a gunshot has occurred: sound, and the IR flash of a gun. Both must be present to determine a gunshot has occurred. ShotSpotter relies solely on sound, which leads to a lot of false alerts (the main complaint of the system in places like Wilmington DE)

All of the processing is done at the sensor and integrates to a proprietary alerting interface that can use a phone, SMS, digital radio, email, etc to alert whoever you want. This eliminates the need for a human to monitor the system, which is ok because you've got a dual factor method to determine a legit gunshot. 

This system was of course born out of an outside gunshot detection system, developed by DARPA and privatized. It has 17 million hours of operation with a false alert of either kind: it never missed a real gunshot, and never reported a fake one. But it has a limit, and that's a 40 ft range to assure its accuracy, and it needs to be inside. That's what this really comes down to: being honest about the limits of the tech you're pitching. 

Their outdoor system was successful as well, but because of the method it was deployed:

Unlike ShotSpotter, this outdoor detection system was used in a perimeter for specific buildings or mobile patrol vehicles that were already experiencing incoming fire. As in, the bullet itself is moving through its sensor network. As a bullet of sufficient caliber, speed, etc traversed the sensor area, the sound of the travelling round, the air it displaced, trajectory, etc was captured and could determine the caliber of bullet, distance from the shooter and elevation. But the bullet had to cross the sensor field, coordinated among a group of individual sensors. 

This detail is crucial because it's the exact opposite of the way ShotSpotter is deploying: placing them in a grid and just listening for a sound from any direction. This gives you the least accurate picture of what is occurring in relation to gunfire, basically 'loud bang in the average decibel range of a gunshot'. 

Now, knowing this, here's what I think. ShotSpotter owns the data because it doesn't want it disseminated because it would paint a less than stellar picture of its performance. The technology just doesn't work the way they're marketing it, and if you judged officer response time with vs without ShotSpotter, I doubt you'll see any trend upward for any length of time that's statistically viable. 

For it to be an effective tool, and if it worked the way it was marketed, it would need help: integration with a VMS with facial recog and high-quality cameras to support an evidentiary chain once the system detected an accurate gunshot. In that way, it can feed LEOs data about the scene before they arrive. The value of that, however, is honestly up for interpretation and is pretty contextual. 

In short, it doesn't really work, but there's a huge incentive to a lot of people to make it seem like it does. ShotSpotter went public not too long ago, I believe. 

Sorry for the wall of text, but I enjoy the discussion. 

(1)
U
Undisclosed #1
Dec 22, 2017

"Now, knowing this, here's what I think. ShotSpotter owns the data because it doesn't want it disseminated because it would paint a less than stellar picture of its performance."

100% agree.

"In short, it doesn't really work, but there's a huge incentive to a lot of people to make it seem like it does. ShotSpotter went public not too long ago, I believe."

100% agree.

"Sorry for the wall of text, but I enjoy the discussion."

Never apologize for informing others of what reality is when others are trying to obscure the same.

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions