Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chicago Debates Merits of ShotSpotter Technology

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the think-of-it-as-a-ping-that-makes-bad-people-go-away dept.

Crime 385

theodp writes "After a week that saw more than 40 people shot and at least 4 killed, Chicago politicians and police are at odds on whether to implement ShotSpotter, a camera and acoustic sensor-based gunshot-location system that is designed to pinpoint a shooter's location within seconds. The Chicago Police Department opposes such a move, saying ShotSpotter wasn't reliable in an earlier trial and — at $250,000 for a square mile of coverage — is too expensive. The company says the system has dramatically lowered crime rates in cities across the country. ShotSpotter is currently deployed in two countries and 51 US cities and counties."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Listen to the police (4, Insightful)

kabloom (755503) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724348)

Well, if the Chicago police are saying "we tried it and it doesn't work", I'd listen to them rather than the company.

Re:Listen to the police (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724394)

Well, if the Chicago police are saying "we tried it and it doesn't work", I'd listen to them rather than the company.

Especially seeing as, if it does get deployed and someone is prosecuted based on evidence from it, the first thing the accused will do is turn around and say "Hey, even the local police force doesn't believe in this crap, so how can you use it against me in court?"

Re:Listen to the police (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724398)

You gotta understand the police mentality. They resist any kind of change, more so if it's going to make them busy and even more if it'll get them in trouble. Picture highschool, if you will. Remember the jocks on the football team? By and large, it's the same mentality.

I implemented a software project for a police department. I did my homework, fully vetted the system. I had limited trials and corrected what needed to be corrected. Come deployment, not a single officer used it. After months of work, the project was canned because the offers had "tried it and it didn't work". Aside from my early adopters ( the ones who had used it while it beta so I could squash any last minute bugs ), not a single officer had logged in to the system.

Later I find out that they were upset that they weren't getting their 12% annual contract raise, and because the software had cost something on the order of 10,000, they were boycotting it for dick-swinging reasons. These aren't the kind of people I would base any decision on.

That said, it speaks more that the politicians do want this system. That'd be enough to terminate any project as far as I am concerned.

Re:Listen to the police (3, Insightful)

lorenlal (164133) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724528)

Bitterness: High
Anecdotal: Much
Citations: Needed

I'll believe that you did the work you claim. Even the best software fails for reasons beyond the developers' control. But to claim that it was from 'dick-swinging' sounds... well.. petty and bitter. Especially since the statement started with "Later I find out..."

Pretty much, you're bitter from hearsay... And you're pissed that they cut your project because of lack of adoption. Sorry. But don't take it out on *all* cops.

As an IT guy, I'm pretty used to broad generalizations, and I'm pretty used to being on the wrong side of many of them.

Re:Listen to the police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724850)

That was merely a single example from many. And while I'd like to believe it's limited to my little corner of the country, I've heard too much from other IT folks to believe that.

Sure, I'll grant you that the larger departments have "better" behavior, but it ultimately boils down to the same thing.

Listen to a 3rd party (2, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724578)

Last time I heard of this technology, it worked great in open areas. But if it was deployed in a place with many hard surfaces, like the average city, it became confused by all the echoes and didn't do so well.

Bats don't have any problem with cave interiors, so it would seem locating gunshots despite the hard surfaces should be possible, maybe even easier with all the echoes. Maybe they've solved this by now?

There any independent lab or testing organization that can say? Or any other organization that's tried it and can report on their experiences? The military is very interested in this, and are the ones that paid for the much of the early work. I'm supposing the military's opinion would count highly with the police.

Re:Listen to a 3rd party (2, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#31725034)

I'm not a physicist, but it seems that it would be relatively trivial to work out the location of a sound in an open space by using 3 or more mics. Adding echoes certainly wouldn't simplify the algorithm, but yes it should still be possible to do it. I suspect you could probably train up a neural net to learn the echo patterns when sounds are made location (this would obviously need to be done individually for each installation), or you could do it the hard way and build a 3D model of the city and have another algorithm that works out likely echo patterns that way. A lot of American cities seem to be developed in a criss-cross pattern so that might make the task easier, but here in the UK the cities are just a mish-mash of different building types and curving streets..

Re:Listen to the police (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724990)

They have a union. Do you really need any other reason not to trust their decisions?

Re:Listen to the police (4, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724420)

Indeed. Unless it's a union ploy and it really does work.

In which case, $250k per square mile doesn't really seem that bad to me, though, assuming it's the one-time installation fee and not a yearly operational cost. That's 640 acres, and at Chicago's population density of 12k per square mile means the system only costs $20 per "covered" resident.

Re:Listen to the police (1)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724466)

Hearing how Chicago is run, police opposition might just be the best kind of endorsement there is.

But, of course, I could be wrong. ;-)

Re:Listen to the police (3, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724770)

Indeed. Unless it's a union ploy and it really does work.

In which case, $250k per square mile doesn't really seem that bad to me, though, assuming it's the one-time installation fee and not a yearly operational cost. That's 640 acres, and at Chicago's population density of 12k per square mile means the system only costs $20 per "covered" resident.

If this system is deployed, I predict that silencers and/or ballistic knives will become popular on Chicago's black market. If there weren't already such well-known, low-tech devices that can defeat this system, I might consider its merits. I wish we'd embrace good old-fashioned police work instead of trying to find technological shortcuts around it. These arms-race scenarios are only one reason I feel that way.

If we really wanted to reduce crime, we'd legalize the personal use of drugs by adults, release all of the non-violent drug offenders, and use the (tremendous amount of) extra jail space for violent criminals. We'd have more honor that way too, if we only used police to go after criminals who hurt others and stopped using them to tell adults what they may ingest. Unlike the ShotSpotter system, this would both reduce crime and save money.

Re:Listen to the police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724796)

If this system is deployed, I predict that silencers and/or ballistic knives will become popular on Chicago's black market. If there weren't already such well-known, low-tech devices that can defeat this system, I might consider its merits. I wish we'd embrace good old-fashioned police work instead of trying to find technological shortcuts around it. These arms-race scenarios are only one reason I feel that way.

Silencers don't work in real life the way they do in the movies. There is still a pretty loud bang. So what makes you think this technology won't work with silencers?

 

If we really wanted to reduce crime, we'd legalize the personal use of drugs by adults, release all of the non-violent drug offenders, and use the (tremendous amount of) extra jail space for violent criminals. We'd have more honor that way too, if we only used police to go after criminals who hurt others and stopped using them to tell adults what they may ingest. Unlike the ShotSpotter system, this would both reduce crime and save money.

Seems to me, this system is designed "to go after criminals who hurt others". You are contradicting yourself.

Re:Listen to the police (2, Informative)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724928)

It is called a "Suppressor" not a silencer for a reason. Unless street thugs start buying $1000+ guns instead of $50 used hi-points, this system will remain effective and useful.

Ballistic knives? I think people are just going to stick to stabbing rather than running around with a spring powered knife launcher.

Re:Listen to the police (2, Insightful)

Rivalz (1431453) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724876)

I would say that if they could link this technology with fast acting satellite survailance it would go a long way to reducing the cost of solving a homicide in terms of man hours.
Since it would be close to the same as a policeman thinking their is a crime in progress I would also think that would cut down on some of the privacy hurdles we all know and love.
If you had pinpoint precision, plus satellite & infrared / thermal coverage you could do some real damage to crime.

I doubt it would do much for Murder Rates but it should help solving more murder cases.

I'm curious after DNA testing was introduced did murder rates go down or just having solved cases go up?

Re:Listen to the police (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31725096)

Doesnt seem so bad? Lets play math.

the city covers 234 square miles. that's nearly 60 million dollars.

the urban area covers 2122 sq miles. thats 530+ million dollars.

the metro area covers 10874 sq miles. thats in excess of 2.7 billion dollars.

But wait, there's more: for this extremely large amount of cash in a city already nearly bankrupt, you also get a questionable, statistically ambiguous reduction in crime.

Yes sir, that's money spent that is.

Re:Listen to the police (4, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724454)

Well, if the Chicago police are saying "we tried it and it doesn't work", I'd listen to them rather than the company.

I doubt the police have the most informed opinion. RTFA, the city didn't even hook it into the 911 call center, the way the successful cities did.

My guess is the police are looking at the $250,000/square mile cost and saying "We could put 4 more officers on the street for that money." Never mind the misunderstanding of the difference between up front and ongoing costs.

Basing a decision on a flawed study and the opinions of someone who believes they will financially suffer is not a recipe for a good result.

Re:Listen to the police (3, Interesting)

maroberts (15852) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724524)

I suspect that as the police might be on the receiving end of some of those fired shots, they would be unlikely to be opposed to a system which worked reliably. If the system was not installed or operated correctly then there is probably some blame attached to the company for not offering the correct support to ensure these went smoothl

Re:Listen to the police (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724568)

I suspect that as the police might be on the receiving end of some of those fired shots, they would be unlikely to be opposed to a system which worked reliably.

What good would a system telling you where the shot came from do if the officer is the one being shot? I.e., there already?

Re:Listen to the police (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724632)

Many people who are shot at are in no shape to describe the location of anything.

Re:Listen to the police (4, Insightful)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724726)

What good would a system telling you where the shot came from do if the officer is the one being shot? I.e., there already?

These were originally developed for the military to identify the location of a sniper. If you were on the ground looking for a gunman you couldn't see, you'd damn well appreciate a system like this.

Re:Listen to the police (4, Interesting)

DrVxD (184537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724720)

Interesting point - but I suspect it's actually to the converse of what you're suggesting.

Consider - the police will (generally) have localised those shots that are being fired at them - so this system makes little difference in that case. However, what it will do is locate other gunshots - which the police will then have to respond to (and thus putting themselves in the firing line)

Re:Listen to the police (4, Informative)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724820)

Police in the United States are not required to respond to anything.

Re:Listen to the police (1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724898)

This is the truth! They have no legal requirement "to protect and serve" except in very specific situations where they explicitly promise someone they will protect them, and that rarely happens due to the liability factor.

Re:Listen to the police (1)

LiENUS (207736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724904)

Police in the United States are not required to respond to anything.

What? Citation please? I guess they're not required to inso much as you aren't required to go to work every day.

Re:Listen to the police (5, Informative)

Broken scope (973885) | more than 4 years ago | (#31725064)

Warren v. District of Columbia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia [wikipedia.org]

Castle Rock v. Gonzales
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales [wikipedia.org]

As loath as I am to link to this site, it gives a very good explanation.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html [firearmsandliberty.com]

listen to scientists (4, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724618)

Well, if the Chicago police are saying "we tried it and it doesn't work", I'd listen to them rather than the company.

Police aren't unbiased either. If a tool (or effective policing) pushes crime out of an area, you don't need as many police officers in that area, do you? And if it works in one part of the city, it'll probably work in others. That means layoffs. Let me know when you hit that stage of your life where you realize that the police have little incentive to effectively enforce the law.

Sorta similar to firefighters. Fire calls have dropped in the last 20-30 years to 1/4 of what they used to be; more sprinkler systems, better building and electrical codes, etc. We just don't need nearly as many firefighters these days. So rather than lay off firefighters (or reassign them to work in small rescue crews, or in ambulances as rescue techs) the city of Boston now sends out in many cases TWO fire trucks to any medical or vehicle crash call, putting unnecessary miles on expensive heavy equipment and running up fuel bills.

But, they get to look busy...

Re:listen to scientists (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#31725018)

> We just don't need nearly as many firefighters these days

Just need a few more precious pet cats stuck up trees.

Re:listen to scientists (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31725062)


If a tool (or effective policing) pushes crime out of an area, you don't need as many police officers in that area, do you?

That wouldn't be my guess as to why the police oppose it.

Think about it this way. If a tool makes more police have to respond more often and more quickly to shooting incidents with still armed suspects.. do you really think the police would favor that?

Here's a radical idea (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724350)

Illinois is one of the few areas of the country that do not issue firearms licenses. Let the law abiding citizens carry guns like the constitution allows them to do and you'll see gun crime drop dramatically. Just look at the statistics of the rest of the country who freely let their citizens carry.

Re:Here's a radical idea (0, Offtopic)

Coffee Warlord (266564) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724438)

Not exactly. Firearms are banned within the Chicago city limits (and probably a couple other smaller towns, but I dunno), but the state issues firearm owners licenses. No concealed carry permits in the entire state, though.

There's been a big push lately to repeal Chicago's anti gun laws, with some recent court decisions.

Re:Here's a radical idea (5, Insightful)

Theodore (13524) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724656)

Not quite...
In Illinois, if you even want to TOUCH a gun, you need a FOID card (firearms owner ID).
In Chicago, all firearms must be registered, and no handguns can be registered after some date in 1982-ish (basically, you can have a shotgun or rifle, but can't own a pistol).
Open and concealed cary are basically banned in IL, unless you are retired police (in other words, Drew Peterson could conceal carry, but R. Lee Ermey couldn't).

All these restrictions are unconstitutional. Period.

I _DARE_ mayor Daley to produce copies of the perpetrators' FOID cards, and the registration of their firearms.
What's that? They don't have one?
Well, I for one am SHOCKED that someone who would shoot at another human being just because they felt like it, wouldn't at least make sure they could legally do so.
(Heavy sarcasm there).

As for the shotspotter system, I remember seeing examples of this about 12-15 years ago; it was highly touted for a bit, then kinda dissappeared...
It was combined with all the police cameras that were going up back then (just in bad neighborhoods, we swear... sorry, but now EVERY neighborhood is a bad one, so we need cameras everywhere).
The last part is not an exaggeration... next time you go through Chicago, look for little blue blinking LEDs on the lampposts... then ask yourself who won the cold war.

Re:Here's a radical idea (4, Interesting)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724772)

my wife and her cousin were mugged in full view of police camera on Argyle street ("vietnamese town"), and the images from the camera on telephone pole were utterly useless. couldn't see under hat brim to see face, the perps know they can just keep their chin slightly down with a cap and they can rob, rape, and murder in camera shot. the percentage of crimes solved using those camera pictures is in the realm of statistical noise.

Good decent people own guns in illinois and have their FOID card, but they aren't the ones doing drive by shooting or holding up liquor stores or banks. But that idiot hypocrite Mayor Daley, who relies on armed people for protection, says gun ownership by good decent law-abiding people (the ones who don't have guns in chicago right now) having the means to defend themselves would mean an explosion of crime. what a moron, both my brothers live in states that allow concealed carry, and in both their cities of residence the crime rate has plummeted.

Re:Here's a radical idea (-1, Offtopic)

Chris Colohan (29716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724946)

Good decent people own guns in illinois and have their FOID card, but they aren't the ones doing drive by shooting or holding up liquor stores or banks.

http://xkcd.com/703/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Here's a radical idea (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724506)

Here's a radical idea: stop letting our society turn to shit. Why not actively work to:

  • Reduce the glorification of violence that our country is so in love with. (This is even apparent in Apple's App Store: you can kill people or animals all you want, but NO SEX CAUSE THAT'S DANGEROUS.)
  • Start, every day, accounting for your own actions and their ramifications on others (i.e., try to empathize), and trying to convince and help others to take control of their lives.

Your solution is just as close to realistic as mine (studies are inconclusive about carrying reducing crime*), with the difference that yours emphasizes social mistrust, isolation, and violence, whereas mine is an attempt to get people to care about each other again. Yours obviously has more hollywood appeal, but that alone should make you want to re-think advocating it.

*e.g., [wikipedia.org] "When Lott's data was re-analyzed by some researchers, the only statistically significant effect of concealed-carry laws found was an increase in assaults, with similar findings by Jens Ludwig."

Re:Here's a radical idea (1)

humphrm (18130) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724538)

Ummm, my wife has a firearms license, and we live in Illinois.

Re:Here's a radical idea (1)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724550)

So your solution to "too much shooting" is more guns?

Amazing.

Re:Here's a radical idea (2, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724696)

not amazing at good, huge difference between decent law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms, and evil lawless savages banding together in gangs who have no regard for human life or for morality. Already a proven fact that lawful concealed carry reduces crime rate.

Re:Here's a radical idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724724)

Well, the other ideas have been tried and failed. Yet politicians keep trying and trying...

Re:Here's a radical idea (1)

DrVxD (184537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724732)

So your solution to "too much shooting" is more guns?

Amazing.

Welcome to Americans...

Re:Here's a radical idea (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724756)

Absolutely. The problem is not the guns, it's the criminals. Law abiding citizens, including myself, have stopped attacks my merely showing our guns. Criminals want easy victims. Period.

Someday you may understand. I hope you live through it.

Re:Here's a radical idea (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724778)

Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (had a gun)
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (had a gun)
Nobody'd ever get shot, 'cause everybody'd have a gun! (Makes sense!)
Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

Re:Here's a radical idea (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724802)

That isn't amazing at all.

Your statement implies that there is no difference between weapons in the hands of good people and those in the hands of criminals who would attack them.

That's very revealing, but there are many examples of effective, lawful self-defense using firearm. Many didn't involve firing them:

http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/ [nraila.org]

Re:Here's a radical idea (5, Insightful)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724804)

No. That is a gross oversimplification. The point is that handguns are illegal in Chicago, yet last week there were 40 shootings. Let me repeat that. Last week there were 40 shootings in Chicago despite the fact that handguns are illegal in Chicago. This seems to me to be a good indication that gun control laws like those that Chicago has do not work. It's all very nice to say that gee, if we just outlawed guns then nobody would have them and no one would get shot, but last I checked, we don't live in a world populated with unicorns and faeries.

You'd think that Chicago, of all places, would understand the implications of prohibition. When alcohol was illegal it still flowed underground. Why would the politicians expect that making guns illegal would make the m go away? In fact, from where I sit it has made the situation worse, because the law abiding citizen, following the law, has no gun, but the criminal, not giving a fuck about the law, does.

Anecdotally, I live in a small town (approx' 20K people) in Arizona. More than half the population here has a handgun (I have 2), closer to 75% if you add rifles and shotguns. In the last 2 years there has been 2 murders, only one with a gun, and that involved a gang that chased someone and happened to catch up with them in our town.

As I said, this is anecdotal, but in my personal current experience, a high proportion of gun ownership does not lead to more shootings. In fact, it seems to me that more guns, at least here, leads to lower crime overall, which suggests to me that socio-economic and cultural issues are the actual problem and not the presence of "too many guns"

My overall point is that the gun issue is not as simple as a lot of gun control advocates would like to make them, and that in a city with strict gun control laws large numbers of shootings occur. In Chicago, with strict gun laws, the murder rate is 18 per 100,000 residents. In Phoenix, the murder rate is 10.5 per 100,000 residents, yet Chicago has a strict no-handgun law, and in Phoenix you can buy and carry a handgun with no permit. Since the murder rate in Chicago is 75% higher than Phoenix, I'd say that the laws in Chicago weren't working so good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate [wikipedia.org]

Re:Here's a radical idea (1)

Jaime2 (824950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724884)

So you trust your gut over actual data? Gun control has been proven to do very little to prevent gun crime. The only people who don't believe it are those who are selling a message or those who think it is so obvious that they don't even look at the research.

While we're at it, putting people in jail for using drugs doesn't work either. We stopped putting people in jail for not paying their bill hundreds of years ago because it didn't work, maybe we should bring that back? Oh wait, the new bankruptcy laws are the first step in getting that done.

Re:Here's a radical idea (2, Funny)

obyom (999186) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724560)

Better yet, get law abiding citizens to carry flame throwers or hand-grenades. Criminals wouldn't stand a chance.

Re:Here's a radical idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724608)

imo its a shame a lot of american citizens think like that.. with the response time and technology of the police nowadays that section of your constitution doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.. how could the solution to a gun crime problem involve more guns.. id have thought a better solution is to ban guns nation wide effectively making it easier to spot them and prosecute violations.. if anyone uses "hunting" as an argument against it, theyre sadistic rednecks, so you can disregard w/e they say.

Re:Here's a radical idea (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724970)

imo its a shame a lot of american citizens think like that.. with the response time and technology of the police nowadays that section of your constitution doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me.. how could the solution to a gun crime problem involve more guns.. id have thought a better solution is to ban guns nation wide effectively making it easier to spot them and prosecute violations.. if anyone uses "hunting" as an argument against it, theyre sadistic rednecks, so you can disregard w/e they say.

Because the idea of "spot and prosecute violations" is all based on the noble idea of playing fair. You seem to embrace the notion that our criminals run around like they are up against some Victorian-era detective like Sherlock Holmes, and will logically surrender when ordered to do so by police.

At some levels we've dropped way beneath that high water mark of civilization. If the criminals believe that they can simply shoot their way out of a situation, then they do. If they believe there will be no retribution for harming someone, then they harm people with impunity. They've realized that laws are ineffective if the risk of penalty is low enough. And criminal gangs demonstrate a military understanding of statistics: if you start with 100 armed criminals, and three get locked up or shot while committing a crime, you still have 97 armed criminals.

You also seem to believe that by outlawing all guns, all guns will suddenly go away. They will not. Guns are precision-built machines that last a hundred years or more. Even if they are outlawed today, our great-grandchildren will still have access to guns. Guns are buried in our psyche: the ancient idea of defending yourself and your family, and providing yourself with food via hunting, are very deeply ingrained in our people. Outlawing guns will simply result in hidden caches of weapons located across the country. It's why even gun registration is so vehemently opposed: if forced to register guns, in many people's minds that's the last step prior to confiscating them when they're banned. And they're not wrong in that assumption.

Couple the "immediacy" of committing armed violence with the interminable legal delays involved in prosecuting a criminal with the high chances of getting off with little to no punishment, and you have created a class of people who believe and act as if they are completely beyond the rules.

Arming the citizenry acknowledges that, while there is no immediate legal punishment for violating the law, the threat of a corporal punishment meted out immediately will still act as a deterrent. This country is filled with empirical proof: Chicago and New York have some of the highest gun crime rates and yet have the most restrictive gun laws. Restrictions simply don't work in our society. Not anymore.

Re:Here's a radical idea (1)

plover (150551) | more than 4 years ago | (#31725016)

Oh, and before anyone makes the incorrect assumption, no, I do not have nor have I ever owned any guns myself. I don't hunt. And I do not belong to the NRA. I just look at the crap going on in the urban areas, and can see that gun restrictions are completely failing our society.

Re:Here's a radical idea (4, Interesting)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724972)

"with the response time and technology of the police nowadays that section of your constitution doesnt make a whole lot of sense to me"

WTF are you babbling about? Been watching too many cop shows methinks. :)

Unless you live next door to a police station, response time is still "reaction time", not "intervention/interdiction/prevention".

That means the cops show up to scrape your dead arse off the pavement if you lost the fight.

In my case, I lived far enough out that the cops couldn't find my house for more than a half-hour. The white trash crackheads partying on my perimeter road told my wife (I was deployed at the time) to piss off when she asked them to leave. That they didn't do more is likely because she was carrying a 5.56 Ruger Mini-14. She returned to the house, put a few rounds into the ground (NOT horizontally, no one was in danger) where they couldn't see the impact area but we could dig up the bullets if required), and they left rapidly never to return.

The sheriff was pleased, our neighbors ditto, and we got no more visitors. Beats going home to a fucked/dead wife and a looted house in my book.

BTW, the US can't be peaceful because it is too culturally and economically diverse. American subgroups have nothing in common, so the only way to keep society reasonably peaceful is to contain the most violent by force. Even the Coalition allows Iraqi heads of household to have one full-auto battle rifle because it is necessary in order to avoid being a victim.

Or... (-1, Troll)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724382)

Or we could have reasonable gun control laws. Cue the nutcases who think they're going to 1) have a reason to fight the US Army and 2) think they could possibly beat them.

Thanks NRA! Not only are you keeping our murder rate high [nationmaster.com] , but you're also helping to kill Mexicans too [alternet.org] .

Re:Or... (5, Informative)

Scutter (18425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724496)

Or we could have reasonable gun control laws.

Guns are already illegal within the Chicago city limits. Guess those "reasonable gun control laws" aren't quite working out like you'd hoped, huh?

Re:Or... (0, Troll)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724530)

Unenforced legislation is no different from no legislation. If that reasonable law were enforced, then all of these people wouldn't be dead.

Meanwhile, France and the UK and most of continental Europe do enforce gun control laws, and have much lower murder rates. But don't bother with the facts. Use your biases to pretend that you already know the truth.

Re:Or... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724590)

Dude: You come here quoting Chomsky and expect to be taken seriously? C'mon...!

Re:Or... (1)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724836)

Who should I quote instead?

Re:Or... (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724612)

Since the US Armed Forces have already been defeated in Vietnam, Somalia and very soon Afghanistan, I say there are a lot of chances of sending them home packing on CONUS as well.
Crime in the US is mainly the result of wide social disparities, much like in South America. In Europe until now such disparity was very reduced, but times are a-changing.
Curious to note that Switzerland, with high gun ownership levels, is a very low-crime zone. The UK, by contrast, is the most violent country in Europe.

Re:Or... (2, Informative)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724708)

The logistics of supplying troops in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Somalia are what caused their defeat. There are hundreds of military and national guard installations, a huge reserve of oil, and years worth of supplies located on a national network of well-maintained roads and bridges, railways, and thousands of airports.

Curious to note that Switzerland, with high gun ownership levels, is a very low-crime zone. The UK, by contrast, is the most violent country in Europe.

The swiss are trained in a national guard and allowed to keep their semi-automatic weapon. In America there is no prerequisite to gun ownership. Here are the Swedish requirements via Wikipedia:

To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.

To buy a gun from an individual, no permit is needed, but the seller is expected to establish a reasonable certainty that the purchaser will fulfill the above-mentioned conditions (usually done through a Criminal Records Bureau check). The participants in such a transaction are required to prepare a written contract detailing the identities of both vendor and purchaser, the weapon's type, manufacturer, and serial number. The law requires the written contract to be kept for ten years by the buyer and seller. The seller is also required to see some official ID from the purchaser...

Basically, the sale of automatic firearms, selective fire weapons and certain accessoires such as sound suppressors ("silencers") is forbidden (as is the sale of certain disabled automatic firearms which have been identified as easily restored to fully automatic capability). The purchase of such items is however legal with a special permit issued by cantonal police. The issuance of such a permit requires additional requirements to be met, e.g. the possession of a specific gun locker. ...Ammunition sales are registered only at the point of sale by recording the buyer's name in a bound book.

Curious that you don't know the difference between "reasonable gun controls" and "let's have unregulated gun bazaars, give every idiot with $1000 a semi-automatic assault rifle, and see what happens."

Re:Or... (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724824)

Crime in the US is mainly the result of wide social disparities, much like in South America.

Do you really believe that's a satisfying explanation? That it's normal and natural to assume humans will deal with social disparities by becoming criminals?

There are some people who grow up dirt-poor, with none of the luxuries many take for granted. Yet they don't steal, they don't murder, they don't deal with their situation that way. Others in the same situation become career criminals. I find the difference between those two to be much more interesting and worthy than the difference between rich and poor.

Re:Or... (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724664)

"Meanwhile, France and the UK and most of continental Europe do enforce gun control laws"

And meanwhile you *still* get situations like biker gangs in Denmark going at each other with shoulder fired AT4-HEAT antitank grenades.

Contrast and compare to Switzerland - an entire country that is armed to the teeth in every house across the land, and there isn't mayhem.

Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stem violence, a fact that anti-gun people tend to ignore.

--
BMO

Re:Or... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724728)

Contrast and compare to Switzerland

That's because they're properly trained to use the guns while they do national service. You can hardly compare mass ex-military gun control to what we have where they're nothing more than penis extensions for morons and cowards.

Re:Or... (0, Troll)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724764)

Read my other post [slashdot.org] on the very real, and very strict guns laws in Switzerland.

Denmark's homicide rate is per 100,000 per year is .88
The US homicide rate is 5.4

Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stem violence, a fact that anti-gun people tend to ignore.

You're quite simply full of shit.

Re:Or... (1)

causality (777677) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724956)

"Meanwhile, France and the UK and most of continental Europe do enforce gun control laws"

And meanwhile you *still* get situations like biker gangs in Denmark going at each other with shoulder fired AT4-HEAT antitank grenades.

Contrast and compare to Switzerland - an entire country that is armed to the teeth in every house across the land, and there isn't mayhem.

Gun control laws do absolutely nothing to stem violence, a fact that anti-gun people tend to ignore.

-- BMO

That's why I often refer to this as a religious issue. For gun-control advocates, the comparison between Denmark and Switzerland requires an explanation. It seems they would rather ignore it. In my way of looking at things, if I were an advocate of gun control and encountered such a comparison, I must either give a truly satisfying explanation for it that is consistent with gun-control, or I must abandon gun-control.

There is no shame in abandoning gun-control if I notice that there are fatal flaws in its reasoning. At that point, abandoning it and never advocating that view again would be the only blameless thing to do. I don't see gun-control advocates trying to seriously address such patterns. The best they seem able to do is to discredit the statistics, even when they're quite sound. All they seem to do with data contradictory to their expectations is to dismiss it or ignore it. They never seem to respond to it or feel a need to do so. This is a religion that refers to data only when it is convenient.

That makes it obvious to me that they have an inferior worldview, and it frankly makes me suspicious of their motives. Their inability to respond to objections is so obvious that I believe one or both of two things are happening. Either these people are so thoroughly ignorant about how to advocate a position that they don't see these things as problems, or they know they are problems and don't care because gun-control is about disarming law-abiding citizens and was never about reducing crime. I suspect that a combination of the two is occurring. The gun-control advocates who have real media presence and real political clout know that it's bullshit, and regard their well-meaning-but-ignorant supporters as "useful idiots."

Re:Or... (3, Insightful)

zoney_ie (740061) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724588)

Kind of meaningless without national controls, it's not like this can be controlled at the city limits in the way a national border is maintained (and even that isn't entirely successful).

Plus even with national controls you would need decades of strict enforcement to see a difference.

Re:Or... (5, Insightful)

theLOUDroom (556455) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724702)

You're missing the point.
Gun control laws do nothing to stop criminals from carrying guns, but they do stop law abiding citizens from carrying guns.

If I'm just a regular guy who wants to carry a gun for defense purposes, I'm not going to do it if it's illegal.
If I'm planning to commit a felony with a gun, do I really care if having the gun itself is illegal?

The idea of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals entirely is laughable.
Handguns use 100 year old technology. Criminals want guns. It would be just as effective as prohibition:
Someone will set up a shop in their basement and start cranking out illegal guns at $1000 each for a massive profit.
That's if people don't take the easy route and smuggle them across the border.

And this doesn't even get into the humans rights side of gun ownership, or the fact that it is guaranteed in our constitution and very much a part of our national philosophy.

Re:Or... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31725072)

> You're missing the point.
> Gun control laws do nothing to stop criminals from carrying guns, but they do stop law abiding citizens from carrying guns.

Too often the difference between a law abiding citizen and a criminal is the point when he/she pulls the trigger.

Re:Or... (1)

_mythdraug_ (27158) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724752)

The city is looking into alternatives. Recent SCotUS arguments hint that there is a leaning to declare laws similar to the one in Chicago unconstitutional.

Re:Or... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724890)

Stop using logic, as you know they wont.. They will just blame people over in Wisconsin or Indiana ( or even Michigan, by boat ) for their 'reckless gun laws, just across the border'.

Re:Or... (3, Insightful)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724662)

you link to a lie, propaganda by the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs that has been debunked. Only 17% of Mexican guns confiscated were traceable at all, the others were from non-US foreign countries and without means of tracing. But you believe the anti-guns lies of a U.S. agency because it suits your anti-gun bias.

The high murder rates in the U.S.A. occur in areas with subcultures that have breakdown of family structure. No father to raise and keep young males in line means a sufficient number of them act as savages to turn a neighborhood into a lawless war zone.

That has nothing to do with gun ownership by normal law-abiding citizens, you rabid anti-gun nuts need to stop implying I or people like me will act as lawless savages with our guns because other groups of people have not the maturity or respect for human life to be trusted with the means to defend themselves.

Re:Or... (1, Flamebait)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724800)

Sorry kid. I've had this argument before.

Correction, April 22: We originally concluded that Obama’s 90 percent figure was “not true” and based on a “badly biased” sample of recovered guns. We are retracting both those characterizations, and we apologize to our readers for this error. We have rewritten the article throughout to correct this.
Our error was to think we had confirmed that Mexican officials submit for tracing only those guns they believe likely to have come from the U.S. Law enforcement officials say they don’t know if that’s the case.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/ [factcheck.org]

Of all guns that can be traced that were submitted, with no selection bias (the Mexican officials didn't send information that makes them think they were of American origin), 90% came from the United States.

The high murder rates in the U.S.A. occur in areas with subcultures that have breakdown of family structure. No father to raise and keep young males in line means a sufficient number of them act as savages to turn a neighborhood into a lawless war zone.

Your thinly veiled racism fails to impress.

Re:Or... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724874)

sorry kid, but your linked analysis proves my point, your initial assertion of 90% was B.S.

Your thinly veiled racism fails to impress.

hah! the racism is between your ears, I've flushed you out, racist! You had some racial group that came to mind when you read my words, but I can show you examples of what I'm saying using any major racial group in the USA. Their are european-descent "white" cities with the problem I've mentioned in Ohio, the problem exists in African descent "black" Chicago south side, the problem exists with some of the Latin parts of L.A.,.....the principal is universal to all races in the event of breakdown of family structure.

Re:Or... (0, Troll)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31725024)

They're trying to cover their ass, after lying the first time. That's the number Mexico gives, and the number the ATF gives. Factcheck throws up their hands and claims that "no one can no what the number is." Everyone else, except for Fox's failure at basic math, agrees with the number.

And you're right, I shouldn't have called you a racist. You're probably just ignorant. The two tend to go hand in hand.

Cue plastic ShotSpotter lookalikes... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724428)

Real ShotSpotter reduces crime by X amount. Plastic ShotSpotter is probably about X(.80).

What's the variance? (4, Insightful)

TheStatsMan (1763322) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724444)

...and with it shall go the supposed evidence. The paltry statistic of 244 gunshots in a two month period vs. 177 in another does not indicate anything about supposed trends in gun crime. Furthermore, yearly gun crime is what is of importance, not a few weeks.

I'm all for this (4, Funny)

Z8 (1602647) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724508)

Anything that increases compound bow or crossbow homicides can't be bad.

works in Boston (4, Interesting)

SuperBanana (662181) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724514)

I regularly see news stories in Boston where the police get a shotspotter alert, show up, find a guy bleeding out on the sidewalk, and sometimes they find him fast enough to call EMS and get him to a hospital and save his life.

I don't think they should have cameras, but the technology is sound- and it certainly is better use of tax money than where most money is going (all sorts of anti-terrorism crap.) The question: why is such a simple technology so hideously expensive? There should be little patentable in the field, given how old and obvious sonic triangulation is. The equipment is super simple- an embedded computer in an outdoor enclosure with a microphone...

Re:works in Boston (1, Flamebait)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724572)

Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?

Please explain why they should not have cameras when said cameras may help stop a murderer?

Oh, and if you are going to piss on about "privacy", the cameras and actions take place in PUBLIC. No one has an expectation of privacy in a public space. So, if you are going to say something about privacy, you can STFU now.

Re:works in Boston (1)

Jaime2 (824950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724738)

Cameras do not reduce crime. London has tens of thousands of cameras and they have not made the city safer. So, why spend millions and slightly erode privacy for no benefit?

Re:works in Boston (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724760)

Please explain why they should not have cameras, especially when almost every city in the United States have laws against discharging fire arms within city limits?

Because in the UK, the home of the highest number of cameras per capita, the technology has not helped one bit. Crime is not down, and the cameras are used instead to look into peoples' windows (as been documented more than once). Cameras are an excuse for the flatfoots to get flat asses from sitting around all day.

In other words, impracticality and blatant misuse as entertainment.

That's why.

That's totally ignoring any sociological/political argument which I will not go into here because it will be like pissing into an ocean of piss.

--
BMO

Re:works in Boston (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31725030)

this should be modded up

Re:works in Boston (1)

ezzzD55J (697465) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724576)

the technology is sound

nice pun ;)

Re:works in Boston (0)

OldGeek61 (1438391) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724652)

If it's so simple, why don't you start a company and build them cheaper??? You have no idea of the tech used in these things, it's an electrical nightmare.

Re:works in Boston (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724768)

Sonic triangulation in an open area: old and obvious
Sonic triangulation in a dense urban environment with buildings and echos everywhere: nightmare

Re:works in Boston (2, Insightful)

stuffman64 (208233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724782)

The triangulation is the easy part. The hard part is figuring out what exactly is a gunshot and what is firecrackers, backfires, kids popping plastic bags, etc. Being able to accurately determine this is not trivial, and thus is costly.

Of course, as something sold to the government, there's always going to be excessive markup, because they know they can get away with it.

Re:works in Boston (2, Interesting)

Ihlosi (895663) | more than 4 years ago | (#31725112)

There should be little patentable in the field, given how old and obvious sonic triangulation is.

Sonic triangulation is only simple if you're trying it on a flat field, i.e. no echoes, absorption, reflections, etc.

Using sonic triangulation in a city isn't simple - unless you're placing a bajilion sensors all over the place (which is expensive in its own right).

Implement and everyone wins! (4, Informative)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724548)

Charge $300,000 per sq mile and kick $50k back to the police department for 'overtime related to training and special classes.' Don't monitor if the classes are performed or even necessary. Don't check if the system is used after implementation.

The police get funding - they win. The company gets cash - they win. The politicians get to look like they're doing something using cutting edge technology against crime which they can feature in their next election - they win.

It's the perfect solution! No one who matters (in the mind of our leaders) gets hurt.

We have it in Rochester, NY (4, Interesting)

purduephotog (218304) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724570)

It works great, or so I'm told. They're able to get cops to where the shooter fired within minutes- and in plenty of time to round up witnesses who swear they "saw nuttin".

There's been at least one drive by in my 'work' neighborhood, and about a dozen+ deaths within a mile. Two bullets in our building. One in the front door within 5 minutes of me entering it (now THAT will freak you out- come into work, forget something, go back to the car and the door has been shot).

40 people shot and at least 4 killed in a week??? (1)

TheSunborn (68004) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724602)

40 people shot and at least 4 killed in a week??? That are insane for a city with only 2.8 million people. Is Chicago the hell hole of all crime in USA?

Re:40 people shot and at least 4 killed in a week? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724704)

Most of this activity is taking place in one ethnic neighborhood next to another ethnic neighborhood so most of the victims are going to the 2 or 3 closest hospitals.

Re:40 people shot and at least 4 killed in a week? (1)

smd75 (1551583) | more than 4 years ago | (#31725116)

I read an article yesterday about 6 people being shot in the same location in two separate incidents. The second time the shooters came by, the ambulances and fire trucks had just left, it was the police and some bystanders at the scene. No police returned fire even though being fired on.

Id believe the 40 people shot in a week thing.

Fix the real problem ? (0, Troll)

nicolas.bouthors (243330) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724622)

Another hugely expensive technology to not look into the real problem of firearms ubiquity in US ?

Anybody thinking about limiting the availability of firearms rather than attempting to pinpoint shooters ?

Appart from that I can't start to imagine how such a prop could ever cost 250K per square mile. I'm pretty sure 2/3 microphones per block + a cleverly hacked strongarm could achieve the same goal.

Re:Fix the real problem ? (1)

BigSlowTarget (325940) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724730)

Why $250K? Multiple highly sensitive very durable microphones, sound analysis software, wireless communications technology and infrastructure support. Solar power or wiring into city power systems. Installation and test for acoustic variation around each microphone system to avoid sound bounce artifacts. Very fast analysis and response all secured to avoid hacking or sabotage. Most of the sophistication is required to avoid false positives, some of it required to survive Chicago winters, some of it armored against people who don't like the concept and will be shooting/pulling down the sensors.

>Another hugely expensive technology to not look into the real problem of firearms ubiquity in US ?

Chicago has some of the toughest anti-firearms laws in the US. I believe the problem is that people are shooting other people anyway. Studies disagree about how effective gun control is, but both sides are already pouring money into the subject as fast as they can.

Re:Fix the real problem ? (4, Informative)

Jaime2 (824950) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724784)

People killing people is a separate problem from firearms ubiquity. It is easy to legally purchase and carry a weapon in both Isreal and Switzerland, yet they don't have high gun crime rates. Every large survey of gun crime rates and gun control laws show very low correlation between the two.

How is it at handling silencers? (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724636)

Let's see... $250 grand per square mile. What's it cost to obtain a silencer from the friendly neighborhood gun dealer?

After a dozen or so people get caught with this technology, I give it about a year before all the gangs in chicago start using silencers as standard equipment.

-jcr

Re:How is it at handling silencers? (2, Informative)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724864)

FYI, technically they are referred to as "suppressors". A properly built gun/suppressor combo can be almost totally silent, but that is rare.

But even an improvised suppressor could drop the sound of a gun discharging to below the likely activation threshold of these devices.

Another tid-bit, you can legally own a suppressor with the correct permits from the government.

Re:How is it at handling silencers? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31725060)

Except where prohibited by law, of course...such as the case in IL.

Unless you're a licensed Class 3 manufacturer, you aren't able to purtchase or keep any NFA item in that state.

http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/ILSL.pdf

250k (1)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724648)

How long are these expected to last? If it is only like 10 years.... It would be cheaper to hire 'listeners' at minimum wage and spread them across the city. And that money gets better distributed and helps employ people. Give em a walkie talkie or a cellphone w/ a camera.

TBH though I can't imagine how it could possibly cost so much. For that price you could say.... Create a city wide wifi system and stick a microphone on the top of every third telephone pole in the city. Which would be more accurate. The microphones don't need to be good at all. And really there are far cheaper things than this I just figured having city wide wifi would make it not totally worthless.

BTW this audio system would cost 150M to do chicago's city center (600km^2). CCTV setup for london costs 200M (over 10years), they obviously get quite a bit more and london is a lot bigger(1700km^2).

More than twice the cost of cctv for audio only for a system that hasn't proved its self? Fuuuuuck that.

Deus Ex - Hong Kong (1)

witch-doktor (1592325) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724686)

They had this in Deus Ex hong hong, as a mechanism to prevent you from doing any shooting on that level

Guns will... (1)

blahplusplus (757119) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724766)

... just get quieter in response.

The first shots... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31724838)

I imagine the first shots that ShotSpotter would pinpoint are the ones shooting them straight into oblivion. If you were a gun-wielding thug who knew these things were around, wouldn't you do your worst to get rid of them ASAP?

Reasonable expectation (1)

somethinsfishy (225774) | more than 4 years ago | (#31724918)

Reasonable expectation of privacy is the legal test, I think. The courts have ruled that in public, there is none. Chicago is the most over-surveilled city I could imagine. For probably fire or six years, there have been a huge number of CCTV cameras, mostly at intersections. In iffy neighborhoods, they are even in the middle of the block. They have large microwave link antennas, and can have a clear line of sight in four directions. If you look around a a square mile or so of hte city, you will see that they are all pointed at the closest precinct police station. They have ligt bars fomn police motorcycles on top of the (bulky) radio unit. A friend lives in a second floor apartment, and they put one of these outside his window.There are more cameras in lower-class neighborhoods, but they are everywhere. (Chicago is a patchwork of about 200 culturally and economically distinct neighborhoods). Mayor Daley several years ago mandated that any business open after midnight has to have cameras. Now the police department wants to use fresher technology to put covert cameras everywhere.

The cameras are clearly meant to intimidate. Daley is a man who's authority is not to be trifled with, and I cannot help but think that the embarrassment his father suffered from the 1968 police riot produced a "never again" mentality around dissent. Chicago has a long history of identifying and suppressing potential or perceived dissent. The infamous "red squads" ferreted out thought crimes until the feds ended the Chicago Police Department's Subversive Activities Unit in 1985.

Some things never change.

The cameras are clearly meant to intimidate. Daley is a man who's autority is not to be trifled with, and I cannot help but think that the embarressment his father suuered from the 1968 police riot has produced a :never again" mentality in his thinking. Chicago has a history of identifying and supressing dissent. The infamous "red squads" ferreted out thought crimes until the feds ended the Chicago Police Department's Subversive Activities Unit in 1985.

Some things never change.

Other Important Uses (1)

NicknamesAreStupid (1040118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31725042)

East Palo Alto was the first city to have complete coverage. They say it has helped reduce shootings. It is also helping to resolve a mystery regarding a plane crash - http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/audio-of-tesla-plane-crash-may-help-in-determining-cause/ [nytimes.com] . I knew the pilot, who was extraordinarily careful about flying his plane and had flown out of Palo Alto airport hundreds of times. We suspect he lost his left engine during takeoff and was pulled left into the power lines (normal procedure is to veer right towards the bay). These audio recordings might determine what happened.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?