There’s still one Orange to root for — The Daily Orange! Donate today and help us win College Media Madness.

As the Syracuse Police Department expands its ShotSpotter system, concerns about the technology’s privacy have resurfaced.

Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the use of live microphones in detecting gunshots in real time as well as concerns about transparency regarding certain procedures used.

The ShotSpotter system was first implemented in 2017 by the SPD and has since been installed in different parts of the city. The most recent expansion came to the Northside neighborhood on March 1, which covered an additional 2.1 square miles of territory according to a press release.

Megan Thompson | Design Editor

Mayor Ben Walsh said in the release that the expansion will help residents feel safer. He added that the police work more effectively through the aid of the system.

Additionally, ACLU said ShotSpotter lacks transparency in addition to its problematic use of live microphones in residential areas. The system utilizes around 20-25 microphones per square mile, according to the ACLU. While analyzing the system, the ACLU determined that ShotSpotter didn’t pose an “active threat” to privacy, but it set a dangerous precedent.

William C. Banks, a law professor at Syracuse University, said that due to the Fourth Amendment, surveillance technology like ShotSpotter could warrant a legal review. People don’t expect full privacy in public spaces, the professor said. However, when they’re in a residential area or in a more personal space, there is a certain level of privacy expected. If ShotSpotter is recording people in this space without their knowledge, it could be a violation of personal rights, he said.

“In general, the more intrusive the new surveillance technology, the greater the Fourth Amendment protection,” Banks said.

The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states that Americans have the right to protect their personal property from “unreasonable” searches by the government. While there has been a struggle to adapt this regulation into the modern era of technology and private companies, Banks said, there is still a legal framework that could generate an argument against ShotSpotter.

Additionally, ShotSpotter uses artificial intelligence technology to assist the analysis process when determining whether or not a sound picked up by the microphones is a gunshot.

Vice reported in July that ShotSpotter altered its data to fit a certain narrative when requested by the police. The investigation came after a criminal case in Chicago where prosecutors were forced to withdraw any evidence using the technology, as it was determined to be faulty. Due to their untested AI procedures, there currently was no way to be sure the technology could offer scientific, empirical evidence, according to the article.

ShotSpotter CEO Ralph Clark publicly disputed these and similar criticisms in an article published in the Buffalo News. The company also sued Vice Media for defamation in October, seeking $300 million in damages.

“ShotSpotter’s core purpose is to make communities safer, help reduce gun violence and, ultimately, save lives,” Clark said in his article. “Critics have purposefully distorted how our system works.”

ShotSpotter partnered with the Policing Project, a New York University project aimed to hold law enforcement accountable, to review the technology.

The report said that “the primary privacy concern we identified with the technology was the possibility that it might capture voices of individuals near its sensors, and could conceivably be used for targeted voice surveillance.”

Dr. Shubha Ghosh, an SU law professor and director of the Innovation Law Center, which focuses on the legality of introducing new technologies into the market, said that the main concern producers of security products face is potential hacking.

If the technology was compromised, then the hackers could have access to these microphones, Ghosh said, which, as stated by the Policing Project, could be used for targeted voice surveillance.

“Security has become a market phenomenon,” Ghosh said. “There should be the appropriate level of governmental scrutiny to regulate its use (by private companies) and ensure its effectiveness.”

Published on March 30, 2022 at 11:25 pm

Contact Grace: gdkatz@syr.edu