On June 2, the Cambridge Public Safety Committee held a meeting to discuss how the police are using Sound Thinking, which used to be called Shot Spotter. This gunshot detection system is in use in both Cambridge and Somerville, but lately it’s been facing pushback from locals – especially since both places are sanctuary cities.
People who spoke up at the hearing criticized the tech as basically mass surveillance and raised doubts about how well it actually works.
“I don’t trust the Shot Spotter technology to be doing what the representative claims that it does,” Danforth Nicholas, a community member, said during the meeting. “This is not public safety. This is undisclosed surveillance.”
Those opposed warn that because Sound Thinking devices record all day long and can pick up conversations, there’s a real chance this info could be misused. Spencer Piston, a political science professor at Boston University who runs advanced programs there, mentioned Paul Greene – a customer support engineer who testified under oath in Massachusetts back in 2015 about how Sound Thinking records audio.
“Shot Spotter centers record 24 hours a day, seven days a week. A conversation at a normal volume may be recorded by a sensor up to 50 feet away,” Piston said recalling that testimony. “In effect, the listening to conversations is continual.”
This worries some people even more since neither Somerville nor Cambridge pays for Sound Thinking – instead it’s funded by the Department of Homeland Security, which also runs Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
“We know that ICE and DHS, more broadly, are trying very hard to upgrade their capacity,” Piston said. “So, from a sanctuary city perspective, it might not be the best idea to build a surveillance state for them.”
Though only short clips – just seconds before and after gunfire detections – get shared with local police departments in Somerville and Cambridge, there aren’t clear rules stopping other uses of audio data from happening.
“The contract language itself says that [Sound Thinking] can share data recordings with law enforcement broadly,” Stephanie Guirand of The Black Response and Camberville Stop Shot Spotter Coalition said. “So that signals to us that the data, the recordings, are being made available to law enforcement – especially the Department of Homeland Security and ICE.”
Another issue folks bring up is false alarms happening often enough to cause too much policing in mostly Black or immigrant neighborhoods where these devices sit. In Cambridge alone around 60% of Shot Spotter alerts over ten years turned out not to be actual gunshots.
“This sets the public up for more encounters with police who are coming into their neighborhoods with the assumption that people are armed and dangerous, which can lead to aggressive policing and violence,” Somerville resident Lauren Leon said at the hearing.
While many concerns still feel kind of speculative right now, residents say it’s unclear if whatever benefits Sound Thinking might bring really beat out its risks.
Cambridge Police Commissioner Christine Elow praised how quick response times have gotten thanks to this technology when no one has called 911 yet.
“Shot Spotter has saved a life in our city, and that’s really what I go back to,” Elow said. “We know that police have arrived sooner [to] gunfire where we did not get a 911 call. And that, in and of itself – the fact that we saved a life – feels enough of a reason to keep it.”
Studies show Sound Thinking speeds up police getting on scene but don’t prove clearly if it saves lives or lowers gun violence overall.
“The issue is that police response times don’t automatically translate into better health outcomes. There’s a lot more that has to happen,” Piston noted. “I think it’s a bit too cavalier to say over and over again that Shot Spotter saves lives.”
“Shot Spotter is a technology that’s largely untested by third-party verification methods,” Guirand added. “If it’s not being tested by a third party, then it’s misleading the effectiveness of their tool – and that has been the case generally.”
Because there isn’t solid proof showing how well this tech works overall raises questions about whether risking privacy is worth any gains here.
“Is it worth giving up your privacy so that we can hear the sound of [gunshots] or have the police arrive two seconds earlier?” Guirand asked rhetorically.
For officials making decisions on this stuff community voices matter most-especially those affected directly by gun violence. Even though lots spoke against using this tech during public comments last week officials reported zero complaints linked specifically with Shot Spotter alerts over eleven years here in Cambridge.
Guirand hosts focus groups among immigrant communities where folks express worry about being recorded without knowing exactly what sanctuary status means anymore.
“People were worried that they’re being recorded,” she said simply. “But they also don’t feel safe publicly coming out to say that they’re against this because they don’t know what sanctuary status means anymore.”
Councilor Catherine Zusy suggested putting use of Sound Thinking on hold until President Donald Trump leaves office.
“I wonder if we should take it down-and then once things calm down again maybe consider turning back on this tech if we find there actually is need for it,” she explained.
(function(d, s, id){var js, fjs=d. get Elements By Tag Name(s)[0]; if(d. get Element By Id(id))return; js=d. create Element(s); js. id=id; js. src=”//connect. facebook. net/en_US/sdk. js#xfbml=1&version=v2.10&app Id=739309339531216″; fjs. parent Node. insert Before(js, fjs);}(document,’script’,’facebook-jssdk’));
Source link
