ShotSpotter: Alerts are modified 10 percent of the time
A confidential SoundThinking document revealed that its ShotSpotter gunshot detection technology relies heavily on human review and analysis to function accurately. An internal document obtained by the AP showed that t he technology, which uses sensors and algorithms to detect and locate gunshots, requires human operators to review and verify the results around 10 percent of the time. The product is often touted as an automated solution . The finding raised questions about the reliability and effectiveness of the technology, as well as the potential for human error and bias to influence the results. It also sparked concerns about the transparency and accountability of the technology, particularly in the context of law enforcement and public safety applications. Critics argue that the technology's reliance on human review and analysis undermines its claims of being an automated solution, and that the public has a right to know more about how the technology works and the potential limitations and biases involved. System 🤖 ShotSpotter Operator: Chicago Police Department Developer: SoundThinking/ShotSpotter Country: USA Sector: Govt - police Purpose: Detect gunfire Technology: Gunshot detection system Issue: Effectiveness/value; Oversight/review ; Transparency
- Date it happened
- 2023-01-01
- Organisation involved
- Chicago Police Department
- Product, system or model
- ShotSpotter
This incident was imported from AIAAIC and is used under CC BY-SA 4.0. Our additions to it — the structured fields, the translation, the checks against other reports — are published under the same licence.
This is a record of what was reported, not a finding that anyone broke the law. If it names your organisation and you believe it is wrong, the corrections process is free and open to everyone.