RT @HeatherCherone: NEW: Nearly a year after Chicago officials turned off the city's gunshot detection system, a new analysis of Chicago cr….

RT @AFRO_Chicago: Join us on Feb 28 at 5pm in the UIC Black Cultural Center for a discussion on harm reduction and Michelle Alexander's The….

Responding to gun violence requires proactive solutions that create a truer sense of community among people, like creating safer third spaces, investing in peacekeeping (shoutout @GKMC18 & The Peace Book!!!), etc.

But that’s only half the point – if we want better emergency response, we need to invest in place and people. We need more ambulances, more access to trauma centers/care, better 911 response times.

To paraphrase a campaign member, the City is trying to find the magic tech that’s being promised by surveillance vendors, but it doesn’t exist. If the City sticks to its requirements and tests respondents vigorously, they should end up not awarding a contract.

ShotSpotter has previously stated they can’t cover downtown bc of all the factors that’d impede accurate detection + locating, so they wouldn’t be able to meet this requirement either unless they change their long-held stance on that.

3) The RFP states the system must be able to cover all 235 sq mi of Chicago, though initial coverage would be no more than 80 sq mi. This may not be a commitment to cover the entire city but does indicate a contemplation of doing so.

2) Another requirement is that location detection must be “exact” & “ within 25 feet” - ShotSpotter claims 82 ft / 25 meters accuracy, so it’d fail to meet this unless it alters its location accuracy claims or the City relaxes this requirement.

Given the data showing that ShotSpotter missed ~30% of probable outdoor incidents (fatal + non-fatal shootings involving a victim reported to police), it’s unlikely they’d pass these tests, and they’re supposed to be the best on the market.

Does “desirable” and “highly desirable” mean that the City won’t award a contract to a company that doesn’t meet these standards, or are they symbolic and something that they are willing to compromise on?.

For example, what kind of non-gunshot sounds will be used to test? Will the City work with an actual expert to design the tests? How will the City guard against companies juicing results?.

While it’s slightly encouraging that this kind of testing is in place, we worry the testing protocol will be rigged or non-scientific or that companies will be able to juice their results specifically to pass this trial.

"Highly desirable" outcomes are 100% identification of actual gunshots detected + 0% false identifications (presumably IDs to non-gunfire-sounds) and "desirable" outcomes are 97% identification of actual gunshots + 3% false identifications.

1) The process includes a demo in a max 0.5 sq mi area during a testing period of up to one week, when the City will randomly initiate "simulations & live gunfire" in the demo area to judge percentage of accurate vs inaccurate / missed notifications.

A couple things stood out to us in the selection criteria and process of this RFP – specifically, things that we believe, if tested vs just believing companies’ claims, couldn’t be met by any gunshot detection product, including ShotSpotter.

While the contract amount is not listed in the RFP, the base term for the contract is listed as 60 months (5 years) with an additional extension option for up to three additional 12-month periods or a single 36-month (3 year) extension.

We oppose wasting more resources on gunshot detection tech, which across companies and products has been proven unable to accurately detect gunfire. Investing in emergency response should come thru investing in our healthcare infrastructure, not tech for CPD.

The RFP states the “tech solution must enable CPD to detect instances of violent crime, in order to expedite response times, improve the likelihood of obtaining forensic evidence, and enable the rapid deployment of first aid for victims.”.

ICYMI: On Feb. 3rd, Chicago’s procurement department issued a Request for Proposals for gun violence (read as “gunshot”) detection technology (booooo), with final responses due in about two months, by April 11th. (RFP here: .

RT @NatlStopSST: Another reason to dismantle ShotSpotter (and all surveillance): Wild story about how Steven Levitt of @Freakonomics helped….