A better use of the tech, though perhaps below the justification threshold for purchasing it as SpotShotter, would be to use it as confirmatory forensics after an instance versus investigating every shot.
Reasoning: if a loud noise happens and no one calls the cops, no harm no foul. But if someone calls the cops or a crime with a weapon is noted, such a murder, wounding, or other violence, this could help narrow down the timeframe the shot may have been observed.
No willingness to evaluate the product, discuss or prove efficacy, or even consider new renewal contract terms.
To be really clear, I think the risk profile of a false positive in terms of a compiler vs police dispatch is the difference between the potential waste of pennies compared to the potential waste of human lives.
(32*7262)/60/8/365 = 1.3 officers a year are wasted. There are like 30k officers in NYC. This seems like it could be a worthwhile investment even with only 13% true positives.
Perhaps this is racially biased policing. Gun shot firing events may track racial neighborhoods demographics. In that case, we should consider whether "racial bias" is a useful dialectical tool here.
Not opposed to the hypothesis, but we're talking about the dispatch of armed agents of the state who are permitted to use violence in the discharge of their duties. It's serious, and the facts that no party disputes are that 87% of the time, the destination is indistinguishable from one where no shooting occurred.
Now, the hypothesis that shots are in fact being correctly detected, however frequently there is no observable evedence is plausible and should be considered. This is something that can be investigated with double blind procedures to determine things like the false positive detection rate, or the rate at which police can accurately determine if a shooting occurred after the fact. I suspect that both of these rates are known and do not support the use of this product, but I am very open to saying I'm wrong if presented with more information.
This all just looks like your bog standard bullshit-product-sold-to-the-government con. Government officers (frequently police and the military) buy into a bullshit product because it justifies their operations and confirms their worldview. Up to the early 2000, the big one was a magic explosives and contraband detection wand that claimed to alert the operator via metaphysical energy when it was placed near any kind of explosive or contraband material. These products are largely psychological aids that help the operator justify whatever it is they are doing.
You could say the same thing about a police officer being sent to direct traffic at a busy intersection, or going to a school for career day. Just because the police officer is an armed agent of the state permitted to use violence doesn't mean the police officer shouldn't do things that aren't very serious.
Thermodynamics ought to have taught us that we can only move entropy around. And all these silver bullets have giant gaping entropy exhausts that we get to find out about once they've been paid for.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/newyork/news/nypd-shotspotter-re...
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/20/nyregion/nypd-shotspotter...
Note that the NYPD's leader, the New York City police commissioner, is appointed by and answerable to the mayor. Mayor Eric Adams supports the ShotSpotter gunshot alert system, which may explain the NYPD's position.
Also note that this audit is published by the New York City Comptroller's office. Both the mayor and comptroller are directly elected by the people, meaning both Adams and Comptroller Brad Lander are politicians as opposed to nonpartisan bureaucrats/civil servants. That may have something to do with Lander's framing of his office's report.
The most shocking story I've seen about it was from 2021: Police Are Telling ShotSpotter to Alter Evidence From Gunshot-Detecting AI https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj8xbq/police-are-telling-sh...
Because the real goal is successful prosecutions, not to eliminate false calls or to reach accuracy parity with 9/11 calls. To wit, no one would want to eliminate all false calls at the expense of a significant number of real calls; especially if a portion of the real calls would not have been reported via 911. False calls are fine if the number of successful identifications and prosecutions is above the rate without shot spotter.
Moreover, we'd need a methodology that looks at the total amount of time worked for successful cases with and without shot spotter, even including false call time. Being frustrated at "unconfirmed" shooting responses is ridiculous if the total time worked build a case, including false calls, is par or better for the same number of cases that don't involve shot spotter. Efficiencies, and conversely wasted time, can be hidden everywhere.
At what point does the city start ignoring shot spotter critiques because logic incompetent critics generate more noise and busywork than they are worth? After all, they aren't even self-careful of their own perspective and respectful of everyone else enough to have a cheap grad student edit their research review for public presentation. If they don't care, why should everyone else?
The cherry on their BS Sundae. This person has zero data to show that the ultimate shot spotter results are substandard. Fire them and hire someone who can think and therefore doesn't embarrass The City:
>“The NYPD’s response to these audit findings is disappointing and reflects a disinterest in using data, effective performance metrics, and transparency to improve public safety. With a thorough evaluation before deciding whether to renew this multi-million-dollar contract, better performance standards, and more transparency, the NYPD could deploy its resources – especially its officers’ time – far more effectively.”
