PDAs to be used for Homeland Security Gunshot Detection

[Janak Parekh]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.bargainpda.com/default.asp?newsID=1154&showComments=true' target='_blank'>http://www.bargainpda.com/default.a...owComments=true</a><br /><br /></div>"What an amazing application for PDAs. Proxity is working with the govenrment to bring their Gunshot Detection System to the streets of the US. PDAs leveraging an internet connection will be able to detect a gunshot and report it to authorities with a reasonably accurate location of the shot(s) fired."<br /><br />It's not clear which PDA they'll be using... and how exactly this will be deployed and used. Proxity does have <a href="http://www.proxygen.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Products&action=page&obj_id=429">some more information</a> on their homepage.

[smittyofdhs]

great idea...but what's the point? The officers would have to be within "listening" distance of the gunshot, right?

And who uses shotguns anymore? I bet there's som e survey out there that shows most domestic criminal activity is done with handguns, not shotguns?

Please inform me if I'm mistaken about this......

[Jonathan1]

Huh? It works on all guns not just shotguns. This is cool but really sounds impractical to be implemented in PDAs. With the exception that it can determine the make\model of the gun. That would be useful in determining if you are dealing with ton o firepower or not.

I could however see this implemented in streetlights using WIFI. Place it every 1/2 mile or so in a city. It wouldn't be as big brotherish as say a video monitoring system since its only designed to monitor gunshot signatures. Of course there are other practical applications as well. How about car crashes? As soon as it detects the squealing of the tires and a crash it could alert 911. Hmmm

[Pony99CA]

Huh? It works on all guns not just shotguns. This is cool but really sounds impractical to be implemented in PDAs. With the exception that it can determine the make\model of the gun. That would be useful in determining if you are dealing with ton o firepower or not.

I could however see this implemented in streetlights using WIFI. Place it every 1/2 mile or so in a city. It wouldn't be as big brotherish as say a video monitoring system since its only designed to monitor gunshot signatures. Of course there are other practical applications as well. How about car crashes? As soon as it detects the squealing of the tires and a crash it could alert 911. Hmmm
Some tech news show (maybe "Tomorrow's World" on TechTV) did a piece on this a few months ago. Redwood City, California, has acoustic detectors scattered about the city to localize gunfire. They report to some central facility.

The problem I have with this is that, by the time officers respond, the shooters could be far away. It might work well for domestic violence, but less so for gang drive-bys. The story did say that shootings had been reduced, though.

The Pocket PC version would help officers who hear a gunshot find the scene faster, I think, maybe even fast enough to catch the shooters.

Steve

[Jonathan1]

Steve,

The shooter may be gone but having such an instantaneous alert system could get medical attention to a victim faster then someone phoning in a shooting. This could potentially save lives. I wonder how much this type of tech costs? As for the PDA version. You'd have to have some seriously sensitive microphones, all on a PDA, to pick up a gunshot that could be some distance away while filtering out normal city background noise. I wonder statistically how close an officer is usually to a shooting. Hmmm

[jizmo]

Maybe those PDA's could be equipped so that instead of informing the officers, it'd take aim and shoot the bad guy automatically.

This would naturally relieve the workload of police and they'd have more time to eat donuts while playing solitaire on their PPC.

/jizmo

[Terry]

The PDA is only used as location mapper...the gunshot itself is detected by a device on a power pole or other location that sends it acoustic information to a central location. The central location sends mapping info and gunshot detail to the PDAs (although not mentioned, one could suppose the data going to car mounted PCs or laptops, dispatch computers, WAP devices or even pagers). It's not really the PDA part that's cool as much as the specially tuned acoustic reciever and sound signature data file.

[Pony99CA]

The PDA is only used as location mapper...the gunshot itself is detected by a device on a power pole or other location that sends it acoustic information to a central location. The central location sends mapping info and gunshot detail to the PDAs (although not mentioned, one could suppose the data going to car mounted PCs or laptops, dispatch computers, WAP devices or even pagers). It's not really the PDA part that's cool as much as the specially tuned acoustic reciever and sound signature data file.
That makes a lot more sense. I couldn't figure out how a PDA could figure out where a gunshot came from accurately. With acoustic sensors spread over a town, you can triangulate to find where the sound originated from.

With a PDA-only mechanism, there would be no way to accurately localize the sound. An echo off of a building would point the officer in the wrong direction.

Steve

[seanturner]

Technological advances such as this one may seem beneficial on the outside; however, I fear that they bring us closer to an Orwellian society in which we must watch our speech to ensure we do not arouse governmental suspicion. While this invasion of privacy might cut down on crime, how far will this go? When will the proposal be made to extend travesties of the Fifth Amendment like project Escholon, which monitors all phone conversations for keywords, to the streets of America through technologies like this. How many more sacrifices will be made in the name of national security? I fear our society is becoming analogous to that of the Borg from Star Trek: They have perfect national security, yet, have no individual thought. While they are perfectly safe from crime and outside threat, is being a mindless drone a desirable state of living?
It is understandable that governmental agencies such as the new Homeland Security bureau would want as much power and the most advanced technology they can get their hands on, but it is the government’s and citizen’s duty to keep them in check. What I wonder, however, is how large of a responsibility do the companies that design this equipment have? Do corporations such as this one have a moral obligation to ensure that their technology is not used to detect words and phrases like “Bush is an idiot, I hope he gets impeached?” and “political protest”? Do companies have an ethical duty to halt development of projects that allow governments to track their citizens as they go through their daily lives? I believe they do.

source: www.pdajunkie.net

[Pony99CA]

Technological advances such as this one may seem beneficial on the outside; however, I fear that they bring us closer to an Orwellian society in which we must watch our speech to ensure we do not arouse governmental suspicion. While this invasion of privacy might cut down on crime, how far will this go?

Is finding out where a gun is fired really invading somebody's privacy? Did I miss the Constitutional Amendment allowing Freedom of Domestic Violence and Drive-By Shootings?


When will the proposal be made to extend travesties of the Fifth Amendment like project Escholon, which monitors all phone conversations for keywords, to the streets of America through technologies like this.

If you're going to criticize the project, you might want to get its name right. It's "Echelon", and, if you're worried about it, the ACLU administers an Echelon Watch Web site (http://www.echelonwatch.org/).


How many more sacrifices will be made in the name of national security? I fear our society is becoming analogous to that of the Borg from Star Trek: They have perfect national security, yet, have no individual thought. While they are perfectly safe from crime and outside threat, is being a mindless drone a desirable state of living?

(Insert theme from "The Twilight Zone" here.)


It is understandable that governmental agencies such as the new Homeland Security bureau would want as much power and the most advanced technology they can get their hands on, but it is the government’s and citizen’s duty to keep them in check.

Actually, one of the government's primary duties is to ensure the safety of its citizens, so this seems like a reasonable initiative.


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This system will help "insure domestic Tranquility" and possibly "provide for the common defense". I do agree that these can sometimes conflict with the goal to "secure the Blessings of Liberty", though.


Do companies have an ethical duty to halt development of projects that allow governments to track their citizens as they go through their daily lives? I believe they do.

Sadly, most corporations only have a duty to their stockholders.

Steve

[seanturner]

Is finding out where a gun is fired really invading somebody's privacy? Did I miss the Constitutional Amendment allowing Freedom of Domestic Violence and Drive-By Shootings?

No, but expanding the system to the point where the government can listen in on our conversations and take project Echelon to the street level is.

Furthermore, it is not a crime to fire a gun. Up in Oregon, people shoot in their backyards all the time (people do tend to have lots measured in acres and not square feet there though :wink: .)


If you're going to criticize the project, you might want to get its name right. It's "Echelon", and, if you're worried about it, the ACLU administers an Echelon Watch Web site (http://www.echelonwatch.org/).

My mistake, sorry.


Actually, one of the government's primary duties is to ensure the safety of its citizens, so this seems like a reasonable initiative.

In the technology’s current form, yes, it is a legitimate initiative. However, if it is used to single out citizens for crimes of thought and belief, then government ceases to be a legitimate organization formed by social contract, but instead becomes a totalitarian regime.

If the government would restrict its use of these kind of technologies to simply gunshots, I wouldn’t have so much of a problem. However, the current and past administration’s track records do not indicate that they will do so. The government tried to get access to a slew of different databases so that they could better locate information on its citizens. All international phone calls are subject to government scrutiny. The government monitors data communications with Carnivore (the name has been changed but it is still the same shame). This project can simply turn into the next infrastructural evolution in eliminating privacy. I see no reason why the government would not expand its current projects to street conversation.

Congress has also recently made a lot of this legal through the passage of the Patriot Act. Now, they can carry out these atrocities legally without having going through the warrant process.

The government is setting up the technological and legal infrastructure for total monitoring. I don't see projects like this one ending with just gunshots.

[Pony99CA]

Actually, one of the government's primary duties is to ensure the safety of its citizens, so this seems like a reasonable initiative.

In the technology’s current form, yes, it is a legitimate initiative. However, if it is used to single out citizens for crimes of thought and belief, then government ceases to be a legitimate organization formed by social contract, but instead becomes a totalitarian regime.

While it's good to be vigilant, you're initial post seemed more paranoid. All that talk about the Borg sounded completely off the deep-end. :-)


If the government would restrict its use of these kind of technologies to simply gunshots, I wouldn’t have so much of a problem. However, the current and past administration’s track records do not indicate that they will do so. The government tried to get access to a slew of different databases so that they could better locate information on its citizens.

If you're referring to the Total Information Awareness project, did you see what happened when they tried that?


The government monitors data communications with Carnivore (the name has been changed but it is still the same shame).

Again, you're making this sound worse than it is, like they're monitoring all data communication now.

My understanding of Carnivore is that the FBI can only use it with a warrant for a particular user. Here's what the FBI has to say about it on their Web site (http://www.fbi.gov/hq/lab/carnivore/carnivore.htm). (Interestingly, they call it a "diagnostic tool".)


The government is setting up the technological and legal infrastructure for total monitoring. I don't see projects like this one ending with just gunshots.
If you're really paranoid, just imagine when they combine this with facial recognition technology. Oooooh, scary....

Steve

[seanturner]

If you're referring to the Total Information Awareness project, did you see what happened when they tried that?
Yes, thankfully the Senate cut funding for the project pending review.

Again, you're making this sound worse than it is, like they're monitoring all data communication now.

They are monitoring all communication. They're only supposed to look at what they have a warrant to see though. I am not sure, however, how the new patriot act effects whether or not they need a warrant.


If you're really paranoid, just imagine when they combine this with facial recognition technology. Oooooh, scary....
It is. I am thankful only in the fact that the government doesn't have (or at least i hope they don't have) the compute power to be able to do anything meaningful with facial recognition. But yes, I also am terrified by the fact that my government might be keeping tabs on the location of its citizens at all time. I hope that I will not some day be thrown in jail for this post because it expresses a dissenting opinion.

[Pony99CA]

Again, you're making this sound worse than it is, like they're monitoring all data communication now.
They are monitoring all communication. They're only supposed to look at what they have a warrant to see though. I am not sure, however, how the new patriot act effects whether or not they need a warrant.

They are not monitoring all data. First, I don't believe that Carnivore is installed at every ISP.

Second, Carnivore is only turned on with a warrant.

Third, the independent technical review of Carnivore (http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/publications/carnivore_draft_1.pdf) said that, properly configured, Carnivore limited the data passed on. Here are some excerpts from the conclusions.


Based on laboratory tests, Carnivore can collect everything that passes by on the Ethernet segment to which it is connected. This capability is no different from any other packet sniffer (see Appendix B describing a commercial sniffer). It is up to the agent who sets up Carnivore to select the proper set of filters so only the data that is allowed by the court order is actually collected. The system contains no automated checks for valid configuration. However, based on analysis of the Carnivore process, IITRI concludes there are significant procedural checks to minimize configuration errors. Multiple agents and FBI technical advisers, and often ISP personnel, must agree on the settings before Carnivore is turned on.

Given a choice between under-collection versus potential over-collection, Carnivore design generally errs on the side of under-collection.

So Carnivore is less intrusive than other packet sniffers and is not on all the time.


Carnivore does not come close to having enough power “to spy on almost everyone with an e-mail account.” In order to work effectively it must reject the majority of packets it monitors. It also monitors only the packets traversing the wire to which it is connected. Typically, this wire is a network segment handling only a subset of a particular ISP’s
traffic.

So, even at a given ISP, it won't scan data from everybody.


The purpose for the independent evaluation of Carnivore includes a number of concerns about the effect on privacy of individuals who are not the target of court-ordered surveillance. Examining those concerns, IITRI concludes that Carnivore version 1.3.4 does not:

Read all incoming and outgoing e-mail messages, including sender, recipients, message subject, and body. It stores packets for later analysis only after they are positively linked by the filter settings to a target
Monitor the web-surfing and downloading habits of all the ISP’s customers, including web searches for information or people. It can only record for later evaluation some HTTP files retrieved by a target
Monitor or read all other electronic activity for that ISP, including instant messages (such as with ICQ), person-to-person file transfers, web publishing, FTP, Telnet, newsgroups, online purchases, and anything else that is routed through that ISP. It can only record a subset of such files for a specific user


So, again, not all communication is monitored.

That report is from late 2000, so Carnivore may have been "improved" by now.

Steve

[seanturner]

True, but, Carnivore does have the capability to do so. I am not sure, however, how this procedure for what is required to use it has changed since the passage of the patriot act.

I am merely trying to illustrate that there is a governmental trend towards having hte ability to spy on its citizens in all aspects of their lives. They have the ability to monitor all traffic, and we have only an independent review and their assurances that they only use it for those they have a warrant for (and I'm sure if the Iraqi's can hide weapons of mass destruction the US government can hide its use of a computer program).

In the not so distant future, the government could conceivably setup a system like Carnivore on the streets of America. They might "target only the voice profiles of those under suspicion" and store them for later review. And, in this situation, we will have only the government’s assurance that they are doing this completely legally and not using it to spy on the status of the latest meeting of the democratic party…

Systems like contradict one of the main premises of Western law that one is tried for crimes of action, not of thought.

[seanturner]

Case and point:

http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,57648,00.html