Mayor Brandon Johnson says Chicago isn't renewing its ShotSpotter contract and will stop using the controversial gunshot detection system later this year.

Chicago won’t renew its ShotSpotter contract and plans to stop using the controversial gunshot detection system later this year, Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office announced Tuesday.

The system, which relies on an artificial intelligence algorithm and network of microphones to identify gunshots, has been criticized for inaccuracy, racial bias and law enforcement misuse. An Associated Press investigation of the technology detailed how police and prosecutors used ShotSpotter data as evidence in charging a Chicago grandfather with murder before a judge dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence.

Chicago’s contract with SoundThinking, a public safety technology company that says its ShotSpotter tool is used in roughly 150 cities, expires Friday. The city plans to wind down use of ShotSpotter technology by late September, according to city officials. Since 2018, the city has spent $49 million on ShotSpotter.

  • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
    31·
    9 months ago

    all of those different noises have distinct soundwave profiles, and different geometries can be accounted for either in software or with strategic placement of mics. I’m convinced this would be a good ML project, if we could find a way of enforcing without police bias, which, good luck.

    • xor
      7·
      9 months ago

      i don’t think so… each neighborhood is shaped differently and will have an effect on the sound profiles…
      maybe if you set it up and calibrated it by shooting guns all around the city (:

    • phoneymouse@lemmy.world
      3·
      9 months ago

      they have this in DC… coincidentally the day with the most “gunshots” is also the 4th of July when hoards of people are openly lighting off fireworks of all kinds in the street.

      • DarkNightoftheSoul@mander.xyzEnglish
        11·
        9 months ago

        I guess I should have said “in principle it should be possible to distinguish these sounds” because yeah a couple people saying stuff to shit on these systems’ technology.

        edit: I expressed myself very poorly last night. I meant to say, “I guess I should have said ‘in principle it should be possible to distinguish these sounds’ because people are making valid observations in the comments about the notorious failures of this product”