On Tuesday the Seattle Police Department (SPD) plans to hold a public hearing on three proposed surveillance technologies it wants to launch as part of a pilot project, including the controversial Acoustic Gunshot Location System (AGLS) proposal, CCTV cameras, and new software for SPD’s Real Time Crime Center. The Mayor’s Office has argued these technologies can help police respond to serious crimes and support crime-solving efforts during SPD’s stated staffing shortage. However, privacy and community activists say these technologies waste police resources and public funds on unproven promises of crime reduction, all while increasing the chances of police violating people’s civil liberties.
The three technologies supposedly work together to enhance public safety. At a public hearing earlier this month, the Mayor’s director of public safety, Kerry Keefe, said that “studies show” that AGLS, commonly referred to by the brand name ShotSpotter, showed promise in preventing crime and assisting criminal investigations “when it is coupled with the CCTV, and other crime-reduction measures, such as environmental improvements, increased patrol, and public support.” The Real Time Crime Center (RTCC) takes the information collected from ShotSpotter and CCTV and overlays them onto a map of the area where the system detected a gunshot or where a serious crime occurred. The City Council approved $1.5 million for the whole project during last year’s budget negotiations.
The City proposes putting ShotSpotter and the CCTV technologies on Aurora Avenue, as well as in the Chinatown-International District, Belltown, and the downtown area. SPD already targets these areas for emphasis patrols, and the Mayor’s office has started on “environmental improvements” for a portion of these places with his Metropolitan Improvement District.
However, based on the response at a February 12 public hearing for the surveillance technologies, Mayor Bruce Harrell may not have the “public support” supposedly needed to make AGLS more effective. All 17 people who showed up to provide public comment opposed the added surveillance.
Commenters raised concerns that the Mayor and SPD had rushed through the Surveillance Impact Report process, giving the public less than 30 days to provide public comment. The shortened period did not give enough time for the City to engage with the public and community on whether they wanted the technology put in their neighborhoods, multiple commenters said. UW lecturer and biochemistry research scientist Rose King said she felt the City needed to slow down the whole process and reach out to the communities they planned to target.
The commenters on the whole expressed a lack of trust in SPD and said they feared giving officers such an expanded ability to monitor the public, in particular through CCTV. Not only would SPD set up its own cameras, the RTCC software update allows SPD to more easily access private surveillance cameras, with the permission of participating owners of those surveillance cameras. SPD said it had no plans to live-monitor the footage and planned to only review it after a reported crime or during an active response to a crime; however, King pointed out that regardless of the SPD’s intentions, it still had the ability to constantly survey neighborhoods.
Other commenters listed off examples of when individual SPD officers abused their ability to access law enforcement databases, or harassed people they met on the job. Multiple commenters voiced concerns about the ability of other states and federal agencies to circumvent Seattle’s shield laws and access this surveillance footage to target people seeking abortion care, transgender individuals, and undocumented people. Seattle Solidarity Budget has mounted a campaign opposing these technologies and proposing other intervention strategies to combat community violence.
The whole proposal projects big Minority Report vibes, especially the promises regarding the RTCC. The RTCC software update takes multiple streams of information and puts them into a single pane that an RTCC staff member can then relay to officers in the field. That single pane also contains information from other SPD databases and surveillance technologies, such as Automatic License Plate Readers, another surveillance technology SPD is currently seeking to expand.
SPD acknowledged in its Surveillance Impact Report that real time crime centers have little evidence to support their effectiveness. They point to one study that shows such centers have an association with increased case clearance rates. Seattle’s existing RTCC opened in 2015, but SPD’s case clearance rates for both violent and property crime stayed relatively flat from 2014 to 2019, according to the FBI National Incident Based Reporting System. SPD did not immediately respond to a request for information about the success of its program.
The new RTCC software mostly helps with the integration of SPD’s gunshot detection system, the AGLS, which goes by the brand name ShotSpotter. The manufacturer claims the system can use microphones and sensors to detect gunshots, trace the location of the shots, and report that information to police. At the first public hearing, SPD Captain James Britt, who oversees technology integration for the department, said that an AGLS would make police more efficient and effective at responding to reports of shots fired. Right now, police must rely on 911 calls to know a shooting took place, and then determine its location, Britt said. With AGLS, police could narrow down where to go when responding to gunshots in the city.
However, AGLS has had notoriously negative results in many cities, including Chicago, where the MacArthur Justice Center filed a lawsuit against the City claiming the system led to unfounded charges against Black and Hispanic defendants. The justice center pointed out that Chicago placed ShotSpotter devices in predominantly Black and Hispanic communities. At the public hearing earlier this month, one public commenter mentioned that SPD proposed placing its AGLS devices in Seattle neighborhoods with a disproportionately high number of people of color relative to other places. All the neighborhoods also have a smaller proportion of white people compared to citywide numbers.
The Stranger thoroughly reviewed the arguments surrounding this technology in 2022, when Mayor Bruce Harrell last tried to push the City to buy the technology. Beyond the potential for these surveillance systems to lead to over-policing in BIPOC neighborhoods, many cities have found they simply don’t work and actually increase police response times while doing nothing to reduce violent crime.
Harrell’s administration has argued that combining CCTV with AGLS improves the effectiveness, but a partially randomized experiment on the effectiveness of AGLS and CCTV showed no significant increase in the number of confirmed shootings. Plus, Chicago also released AGLS alongside CCTV, and the city still canceled their contract with ShotSpotter’s manufacturer, SoundThinking Inc., earlier this month.
At the last public hearing, SPD promised to answer any questions raised at the next public hearing, which is scheduled for 6 pm Tuesday, February 27 at the Bitter Lake Community Center, 13035 Linden Avenue North. The hearing also can be accessed virtually.
People who can’t make the public hearing can submit comments on one or more of the technologies through the Seattle Information Technology Department’s surveillance technology review page. SPD compiles the comments and the original SIR, and gives it all to the Community Surveillance Working Group, which then creates a privacy and civil liberties impact assessment. The whole report, plus the Chief Technology Officer’s response to any comments from the working group, then goes to the City Council, who must hold a full council vote to approve any new surveillance technology.
Shotspotter doesn’t work.
Too many false positives, especially in areas with black and brown citiizens.
CCTV – since when did we become East Germany?
It’s hard to get too worked up about SPD installing microphones to detect gunshots when my movements and communications are already monitored by the largely unaccountable for-profit companies that manufacture or develop my electronics, operating systems, apps, vehicles, and so on. Plus every single person I run into in public is already carrying a sophisticated video camera connected to the Internet.
hbb: wish I could upvote your comment in some way. Can’t agree more. Big Brother has been around for a while – and it is us.
Does TS even want criminals to be caught? Or dissuaded? It sure doesn’t look like it as they come out against anything and everything that might help make that happen.
Minneapolis has been using Shotspotter for about 15 years now, which is de facto proof that the system works. Why would they still be using it if it didn’t? The “problem” with it is that roughly 80% of shooting incidents are not reported by humans but are detected by the microphones, so the result is many more gunshot calls to be investigated, which can stretch already thin resources. Its true by itself it doesn’t show much statistical success in lowering crime rates, but personally I think the mayor is smart to combine it with traffic cameras and such to get pictures of the shooters. In a city that has no problem throwing $100 million/year at the Homeless Industrial Complex, a couple million for a trial run of a linked shotspotter/camera system sounds to me like a good investment.
@4
No. They don’t want criminals caught.
It’s the progressive way.
Too many of those protesting and those implementing don’t understand the technology and legal options available. The car my wife drives is registered in my name so both cam tickets I received were easily resolved as “it wasn’t me”. (Renton and Lynwood)
Seattle has a relatively educated public. I agree with “slow it down”.
@4 Chicago just became the latest of many cities to cancel their Shotspotter contract. Maybe Minneapolis should be next.
https://www.fox9.com/news/gunshot-detection-system-rarely-leads-to-arrests-in-minneapolis.amp
“The data reveals during that timeframe, MPD responded to ShotSpotter activations roughly 8,500 times. … Only 32 total activations led to an arrest – that’s less than one percent of the time.”
@7 that might hold merit except for the fact he had vowed to cancel the contract during his campaign indicating that decision was not based on any data (since he didn’t have access to it) and instead was driven by idealogical reasons (mainly the claim it leads to overpolicing of communities of color). He also made the mistake of announcing his decision by saying it would continue to be used through the DNC convention this summer before making an agreement with the provider so now he will either overpay to use it though the DNC or cancel it immediately. Not the best example of a sound decision maker.
@8 no it wasn’t working in Chicago either, though it wasn’t as abject a failure as in Minneapolis:
https://apnews.com/article/technology-business-chicago-1d62906b0c4b4dc67886da89596b1f12
“The inspector general’s office found that between Jan. 1, 2020, and May 31 of this year, over 50,000 ShotSpotter alerts were confirmed as probable gunshots, but that actual evidence of a gun-related crime was found in about 4,500 instances, or only about 9%”
@10 I’m not sure lack of actual evidence of a gun-related crime constitutes an “abject failure.” I call in shots fired pretty regularly (I live in White Center), but I’ve only found shell casings 4 times, and can only connect two of the incidents I reported to a crime. I suspect that’s quite common: as you likely know, the fast majority of reported crimes go unsolved.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if that 9% rate represents an improvement over public reports of gun shots.
“All 17 people who showed up to provide public comment opposed the added surveillance.”
Sawant left the building months ago, but the Stranger remains painfully gullible to her “pack City Hall” method for generating the illusion of popular support.
@10 it may not have been working in Chicago but my point was he made the decision before he even saw the data so it really doesn’t matter. Also if it’s such an abject failure why keep it for the DNC? That choice indicates it is helpful but only for people in power and he cares less about lower income people who are being killed on a nightly basis in the south side.
@13 who cares why that mayor made his decision the fact is Shotspotter wasn’t working in Chicago, isn’t working in Minneapolis, and there’s no reason to think it will work here so I’d rather the city spend those millions on literally anything else
if it doesn’t work
why not at least Try it
for a few Years or so? it
seems like it’d be awfully
Satisfying to chase down big
Noises when some of ’em might
be actual Gunshots. a few lousy Dollars.
so What?
@14/15 as @11 noted your claims it’s not working are subjective and given your previous comments, coming from an extremely biased viewpoint.
@16 “you guys may have stats but what about @11’s anecdote and rampant speculation?” isn’t the mic drop you seem to think it is
“isn’t working in Minneapolis”
They started using it in 2007. It is now 2024 and they are still using it. Clearly, for them, it is working. You seem confused about its function. It doesn’t make arrests, it doesn’t pick up shell casings. It identifies and locates sounds that are indistinguishable from gunshots. That’s it. And it seems to do a pretty good job. Its reasonable to argue it costs too much for that limited service, or you might prefer that gunshots go undetected, but to say it “isn’t working” is ridiculous.
@17 citing one statistic from one article and using your own criteria to announce the system doesn’t work is not really the own you think it is either so touche’.
@18 “You seem confused about its function. It doesn’t make arrests, it doesn’t pick up shell casings. It identifies and locates sounds that are indistinguishable from gunshots. That’s it.”
What you wrote is the very reason I think it’s useless. If the sound identification doesn’t translate to crime detection or prevention I don’t see how anyone can argue it’s worth the money.
@20: But what @18 wrote is what the system is supposed to do. Integrating that capacity within a larger system of technology and humans should improve responses over the current system of 9/11 calls saying, “someone at X address reported gunshots.” Whether it does that, and does that reliably enough to be worth the money, is the question. Why is it so incredibly important Seattle not make a one-time expenditure, approximately 1% of what it flushes annually down the Homeless-Industrial Complex, to answer that question?
@21 “Integrating that capacity within a larger system of technology and humans should improve responses over the current system”
This isn’t novel technology it’s been around for years. If it does do what it “should” do presumably there would be evidence in support, but so far I haven’t seen any just people’s suppositions.
And as to your latter point I thought the new Council’s whole thing was eliminating wasteful spending, so they and those who voted them in should be most against this boondoggle.
@22: ‘If it does do what it “should” do presumably there would be evidence in support, but so far I haven’t seen any just people’s suppositions.’
As was quickly pointed out to you @11, your flat declaration (@10) that the evidence shows the system was an “abject failure” isn’t an interpretation necessarily shared by anyone else.
Again, as also noted in above comments, the loudest opponents of this system tend to be both really adamant upon declaring it to be an irredeemable failure, and also very, very, very cool on enforcing any laws at all. Perhaps your real fear is it will work?
“…I thought the new Council’s whole thing was eliminating wasteful spending,”
Ah, yes. “We already squandered all of the tax money on our unworkable ideas, so there’s no money left for you to try anything, especially as we who’ve been kicked out of power for our failure to spend wisely are now totally experts on wise spending.” Do you vote every bit as Republican as you sound?
“I always feel like somebody’s watching me”….
There’s a reason why Minority Report is one of my all-time favorite movies. Privacy went out the window a good 15 or more years ago. However, I doubt any pricey technology will motive response times
@23 claiming my evidence against isn’t compelling is not the same as providing evidence for, which neither you nor anyone else have managed to do yet. But in any event here’s a peer-reviewed journal article reporting the results of a longitudinal study of multiple large US cities over seventeen years which found Shotspotter implementation had no impact on homicides, homicide arrests, or weapons arrests:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8566613/
@25: “…claiming my evidence against isn’t compelling is not the same as providing evidence for…”
If you make a pre-emptive claim against even a trial installation of the technology, then you have to provide compelling evidence to show installing it would be a waste of money. You have yet to come close to doing so.
“…no impact on homicides, homicide arrests, or weapons arrests.”
Entirely because insufficient data exists to make those determinations. From your link:
“There is currently a lack of robust, peer-reviewed research that examines the impact of GDT in general, or ShotSpotter technology specifically, on rates of nationwide firearm violence and arrests related to firearm crimes.”
Your response to lack of data is, “don’t collect more data!” Why you imagine this to be in any way helpful is a question only you can answer.
Again, from your link:
“The literature demonstrates that ShotSpotter is a powerful surveillance tool with potential for assisting LEA [Law Enforcement Agencies].”
Note that discharge of a firearm is illegal in Seattle. Even if the only thing the technology did was to record gunfire data, collecting that data might, all by itself, justify the cost.
“ShotSpotter’s firearm discharge identification fidelity is high [6]. A 2006 field study by the National Institute of Justice found that the technology detected 99.6% of 234 firearm discharges in 23 locations [6, 10].”
None of this sounds like compelling evidence against a limited trial run of this system.
@26 those quotes are from the introduction to explain the purpose of the current study. Have you never read a research article before?
“If you make a pre-emptive claim against even a trial installation of the technology, then you have to provide compelling evidence to show installing it would be a waste of money.”
That’s not how that works. If you disagree please provide compelling evidence that paying me $2 million to drive around Seattle yelling “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time!” (just for a limited trial run) isn’t a worthwhile expenditure likely to reduce the crime rate
@27: You’ve already provided compelling evidence your statements are worthless. (For example, objecting to detailed quotes from the very study you cited.)
Seattle may well buy a round of ShotSpotter anyway, not for any good reason, but because Mayor Harrell seems to believe it’s a gee-whiz gadget that can solve political and social problems, like gang violence or whatever. Perhaps Seattle will realize some benefit from so doing, or perhaps not. Either way, the entertainment value of the frothing-at-the-mouth, chasing-your-own-tail level of agita you and the Stranger have exhibited at the very thought has made this richly worthy of dialog. Thanks for the laughs!
Just send all the Seattle cops to “Cop City” in Georgia.
They can shoot and kill unarmed peaceful civilians who are only exercising their First Amendment rights, and get away with it, to their hearts content.