{"id":29135,"date":"2023-01-10T23:11:48","date_gmt":"2023-01-10T23:11:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2023\/01\/10\/dhs-adds-to-the-world-of-shot-spotting-tech-claims-system-is-so-foolproof-it-can-be-run-by-one-person\/"},"modified":"2023-01-10T23:11:48","modified_gmt":"2023-01-10T23:11:48","slug":"dhs-adds-to-the-world-of-shot-spotting-tech-claims-system-is-so-foolproof-it-can-be-run-by-one-person","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mailinvest.blog\/index.php\/2023\/01\/10\/dhs-adds-to-the-world-of-shot-spotting-tech-claims-system-is-so-foolproof-it-can-be-run-by-one-person\/","title":{"rendered":"DHS Adds To The World Of Shot-Spotting Tech, Claims System Is So Foolproof It Can Be Run By One Person"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a>\n
<\/p>\n

\n

from the new-ways-to-fail,-but-portable!<\/i> dept<\/h3>\n

Shot-spotting tech is notoriously unreliable. The industry leader, ShotSpotter, continues to claim it\u2019s helping solve gun crime even as many law enforcement customers shift from \u201ccurrent\u201d to \u201cformer.\u201d<\/a> <\/p>\n

In Newark, New Jersey, three-quarters of \u201cgunshots\u201d \u201cdetected\u201d by ShotSpotter<\/a> were false positives. In another city, the failure rate wasn\u2019t quite as spectacular, but it was little better than a coin flip<\/a>. <\/p>\n

\n

Out of Fall River\u2019s 51 ShotSpotter activations in 2017, 21 have been false alarms, a 41 percent error rate. The sensors often report loud noises such as car backfires and fireworks as gunshots.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The city of San Diego, California terminated its contract<\/a> with ShotSpotter after complaints from residents. It also saw little reason in spending more than a million a year on tech that produced false positives more than 10% of the time and had only led to two arrests in four years.<\/p>\n

With all this good news<\/a> about reliability and accuracy (and that\u2019s just about the market leader), one might reasonably wonder why the DHS has decided to get into the shot-spotting business. A sense of wonderment is always welcome, but it should not be confused with what this DHS press release provokes<\/a>, which is closer to \u201cconcerned bemusement.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n

A new portable\u00a0Gunshot Detection System<\/a>\u00a0can provide critical information about outdoor shooting incidents almost instantaneously to first responders. The system, called SDS Outdoor, was developed in collaboration between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)\u00a0Science and Technology Directorate<\/a>\u00a0(S&T) and Shooter Detection Systems (SDS) of Rowley, MA.<\/em><\/p>\n

\u201cMany U.S. gunshot detection technologies are not easily deployed in the field or at temporary locations,\u201d said Dr. Dimitri Kusnezov, DHS Under Secretary for Science and Technology. \u201cThis new system can be moved by one or two officers without the need for technicians to transport and set up. This mobile capability will help responders approach gun violence incidents with greater awareness, reducing response times and increasing responder safety.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The DHS wants to keep an eye on areas gunshot detecting mics aren\u2019t currently located. Apparently, local law enforcement can ask the DHS to provide the tech (and possibly operators) when handling things like live events that may not be hosted in range of their current detection systems.<\/p>\n

The DHS has taken existing tech and had it modified, supposedly to reduce the number of false positives the devices tend to produce.<\/p>\n

\n

The portable system is an enhancement to the current commercial, off-the-shelf Guardian Indoor Active Shooter Detection System. SDS Outdoor uses two factors\u2014the sound\u00a0and\u00a0flash of the gunshot\u2014to detect and validate each gunshot, drastically reducing false positives. Most other systems rely principally on sound, which can have higher false positive rates. Moreover, SDS Outdoor can be deployed for temporary events in locations where infrastructure support is not available, such as open-field concerts or pop-up rallies.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

SDS (Shooter Detection Systems) also provides indoor options. The company also produces the \u201cGuardian Active Shooter Detection\u201d systems now deployed in some US schools<\/a>. Like ShotSpotter, SDS claims its systems produce \u201cnear zero false alerts.\u201d ShotSpotter\u2019s accuracy claims are as inaccurate as its products. It\u2019s hard to imagine SDS is doing any better. However, the addition of flash detection may reduce false positives, especially if the two (sound\/light) need to be linked before a shot detection can be reported. If the two detection systems are independent, it seems likely to produce double the level of false positives, especially during daylight events when bright flashes of reflected sunlight are common.<\/p>\n

The DHS touts the simplicity<\/a> of the set-up and the system\u2019s ease of use, which requires only a single officer to monitor gunshot detections. While working smarter remains preferable to working harder, there\u2019s something to be said for having experts in the field monitor suspected gunshots, rather than just whoever happens to be on-duty at the time. Even ShotSpotter\u2019s employees \u2014 supposedly just brimming with training and expertise \u2014 blow judgment calls and alter reports<\/a> to favor law enforcement narratives\/theories. <\/p>\n

While it is good to see the DHS take an interest in limiting the damage done by active shooters, the solution is probably not half-baked tech run by novices and oversold by government officials and tech company reps. Some may say it\u2019s better than nothing, but when false positives start prompting police violence and\/or lead to false arrests, doing nothing might be the better option.<\/p>\n