Hacker News Reader

Comment by Imnimo | Hacker News Reader

I think the problem isn't the technology or the idea, it's the business model and the associated incentives. ShotSpotter's customers are the police, and the objective of police is to secure convictions, so ShotSpotter is incentivized to help them do that, not to produce true and accurate predictions. Exonerating a defendant isn't going to win them more business.

View on HN

> the objective of police is to secure convictions

I mean... that's the problem point it would seem

Right. Shotspotter or the generic equiv should be purchased by the city, not the police. The data (raw and interpreted) should be managed in the public, as its a public interest to know about firearms (including the police's) being discharged.

> Shotspotter or the generic equiv should be purchased by the city, not the police.

Generally, the police are part of the city, and the sole and deliberately centralized city agency with a mandate that makes something like ShotSpotter relevant.

So, of course, if it is bought “by the city”, it is through and under control of the police department.

I'm arguing though that due to the conflict of interest, it should be at least one level up IRT purchasing, access to interpretive/raw data, and decision making on which of that data they want to share etc. Remove funding and responsibility from the police to run this system/vendor, and move it into the "office of public data accountability" e.g. which can serve its data equally to the public, watchdog groups and the police.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com