So I don't generally consider myself a conspiracy nut. I don't believe the Gummint Is Watching Our Every Move.
Generally.
But I was reading up on this system, which has been deployed in my home town for several years:
http://www.shotspotter.com/index.html In short, it's a series of rooftop-mounted audio sensors that detect the sound of gunfire and triangulate on it, enabling officers to respond much more quickly. This seems like a great idea and a very useful tool in making my neighborhood safer. Yay!
Then I read a bit more on their FAQ:
"Privacy rights are an issue of utmost importance to ShotSpotter. We have spent tremendous time and effort designing our gunshot location systems in order to ensure the privacy rights of every citizen. Our sensors trigger only when a loud, impulsive sound is detected. Impulsive noises are defined as the short, rapid onset, high intensity sound produced by a discharge of a firearm, firecracker, or explosion. Human speech is incapable of producing such sounds; hence our sensors are unable to be triggered by either the human voice or many other loud noises such as train whistles, loud vehicles, jet engines, dog barking, etc. "
Ok, good good, this sounds reassuring. Continuing on:
"When an impulsive sound occurs-such as gunfire, a firework, or an explosion noise-- and meets these criteria, our system automatically downloads a brief audio clip of the incident. The audio clip lasts only a few seconds and usually starts a few seconds before the sound and ends a few seconds after. Incident audio is immediately is sent to personnel responding to the alert, allowing them to make an accurate assessment of the incident."
Wait a sec.
The audio clip starts a few seconds BEFORE the incident? And you claim that you're not continuously recording audio? Do you have a very small time machine or something? Are you sure you don't mean you're continuously recording audio, but you don't save it unless there's an incident? That would be a big difference, after all. One system can't be easily abused, the other one...
Well, at least we're talking about recording gunshots, right? Not, like, conversations?
Skipping on in the FAQ, I get to this:
"In extremely rare cases, the sounds of loud human voices can be heard in the background after an impulsive incident has triggered our system. In all of these cases, only the sound of voices can be heard, not the actual words. This is because sensors are typically deployed on building rooftops, far off the ground and away from public access. In short, we deploy our sensors are too far away. This is a part of our patented spatial filtering process. In fact, typical human speech is not intelligible at distances greater than twenty feet away from our acoustic sensors as we use the same microphones used in most cell phones. Try this experiment yourself: while outdoors, call your own voicemail using your cell phone, set your phone down, walk twenty to thirty feet away and speak in a normal voice. When you play back the voicemail, your speech will not be intelligible."
Ummm, ok - but how do I know you're telling the truth?
Now we get to the thing which triggered my interest in the first place.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_16391016?nclick_check=1 A summary: Prosecutors in a murder trial resulting from a June 2007 shooting presented a ShotSpotter recording of the incident. The transcript of the recording implicated the murderer with the victim's last words.
"Oh R," Lyles is heard saying on a recording. "Why you done me like that R? R, why you do me like that, dude?"
The article attributes the recording to the ShotSpotter sysetm. This recording was taken in a residential area without a lot of high rise buildings surrounding it. I find it extremely unlikely that the victim was within 20 feet of an "audio sensor" (boy, that sounds a lot less intrusive than "high-powered microphone"), or that he was yelling loudly and enunciating carefully, all while suffering from a fatal gunshot to the gut.
So: here's the conspiracy nut questions I'd like to get answers to. 1) Who is lying, the prosecutors, the newspaper, the ShotSpotter FAQ? 2) Who is monitoring the use of this public safety system to ensure our privacy is being respected? 3) WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE? IS THIS NORTH KOREA?!?
I recognize that this particular murder might never have made it to trial without this particular piece of evidence. But what are we giving up in return? Tools like this need careful oversight, and the lies I'm reading are setting off red alerts about how this tool is being used.
Any suggestions on where I can get more information or take further action would be appreciated. I'm considering enquiring with the ACLU, the Oakland City Council, or possibly the police department directly.