 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Request edit to Introduction edit
 | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello! Proposing changes on behalf of my employer, ShotSpotter, Inc. since I have a conflict of interest. The location of the company’s headquarters has changed and I propose adding the age of the company and the number of cities we operate in to the intro section. Can editors kindly make these changes on my behalf? Thank you!
Change #1
Original Text: ShotSpotter Inc. is a publicly traded, Newark, California based company…
Proposed New Text: ShotSpotter Inc. is a publicly traded, Fremont, California based company…
Language Used in Citation: “The tech is provided by Fremont, Calif.-based ShotSpotter…”
Change #2
Original Text: ShotSpotter claims they can identify whether or not a gunshot was fired in an area in order to dispatch law enforcement.
New Text: ShotSpotter claims they can identify whether or not a gunshot was fired in an area in order to dispatch law enforcement and has partnered with police and cities since 1997.
Language used in Citation: “The tech is provided by Fremont, Calif.-based ShotSpotter, which has been partnering with cities and police for 25 years.”
Change #3
Original Text: N/A
New Text: …has partnered with police and cities. ShotSpotter is utilized by more than 130 cities and law enforcement agencies nationwide.
Language used in Citation: "ShotSpotter is currently used by more than 130 cities and police departments around the country, according to the company." Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Done Ptrnext (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Request edit to History edit
Hello! Proposing changes on behalf of my employer, ShotSpotter, Inc. since I have a conflict of interest. Propose adding the hiring of CEO Ralph Clark in 2010 and in reference to the company's IPO, including the price of shares and the company's market valuation post-IPO. Can editors kindly make these changes on my behalf? Thank you!
Change #1
Original Text: The company went public in June 2017. The company authorized a stock buyback program in 2019 and bought back $8.3 million by the end of 2020.
New Text: Ralph Clark was named CEO of ShotSpotter in 2010. Under his leadership, the company went public in June 2017. Priced at $11, shares gained as much as 21 percent on the first day of trading for a market valuation of approximately $121.7 million. The company authorized a stock buyback program in 2019 and bought back $8.3 million by the end of 2020.
Citation for Ralph Clark's Hiring: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2010/11/10/shotspotter-names-ceo.html
Language Used in Citation: "ShotSpotter Inc. on Wednesday named Ralph A. Clark chief executive and a member of the board."
Citation for IPO Details: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-shotspotter-ipo/shotspotters-shares-shoot-up-in-debut-idUSKBN18Y22W
Language Used in Citation: "Shares of gunshot-detection company ShotSpotter Inc SSTI.O, which is backed by walkie-talkie maker Motorola Solutions MSI.N, rose as much as 21 percent in their market debut on Wednesday. ... The company’s initial public offering of 2.8 million shares was priced at $11 per share, the midpoint of its expected price range of $10 to $12 per share, raising $30.8 million. ... The company’s shares rose as much as $13.35 in their first hour of trading, giving it a market valuation of about $121.7 million."
Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
- I added the CEO date. The IPO is already there, the first day of trading stuff is fairly generic (most companies pop, often by more for tech companies). I'm also biased against language like "under his leadership", which is meaningless in this case. tedder (talk) 00:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! 2601:14F:8004:B150:2D5A:3B8F:157F:5DAE (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Request edit to History (2) edit
| | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello! Proposing changes on behalf of my employer, ShotSpotter, Inc. since I have a conflict of interest. Proposing updating the number of cities, campuses, square miles, and usage of 4G by sensors. Can editors kindly make these changes on my behalf? Thank you!
Change #1
Original Text: In 2020, the acoustic locator technology was installed in 110 cities and 12 campuses, covering 779 square miles.
New Text: In 2021, the acoustic locator technology was installed in over 125 cities and 14 campuses, covering 911 square miles.
Citation: https://sec.report/Document/0000950170-22-004805/
Language Used in Citation: " Our gunshot detection solutions are trusted by law enforcement agencies in over 125 cities as of December 31, 2021. ... As of December 31, 2021, ShotSpotter Respond, ShotSpotter SecureCampus and ShotSpotter SiteSecure had coverage areas under contract for 911 square miles, of which 881 square miles had gone live. Coverage areas under contract included over 125 cities and 14 campuses/sites across the United States, South Africa and the Bahamas, including three of the ten largest cities in the United States.”
Change #2
Original Text: "The locators are typically installed at 20-25 sensors per square mile and primarily connected via 3G and 4G networks (mostly AT&T and Verizon).”
New Text: "The locators are typically installed at 20-25 sensors per square mile and primarily connected via 4G network (mostly AT&T and Verizon).”
Citation: https://sec.report/Document/0000950170-22-004805/
Language Used in Citation: “Approximately 89% of our installed ShotSpotter sensors use fourth-generation Long-Term Evolution (“LTE”) wireless technology and 11% use third-generation (“3G”) cellular communications. Our U.S. wireless carriers have advised us that they will discontinue their 3G services in the future and our ShotSpotter sensors will not be able to transmit on these networks. As a result, we will have to upgrade the sensors that use 3G cellular communications at no additional cost to our customers prior to the discontinuation of 3G services. As our wireless carriers phase out their 3G services or make changes to their spectrum allocation, we may experience reduced service performance, which may require us to replace our 3G sensors sooner than planned. Accelerated bandwidth changes by our carriers may require us to accelerate the upgrade of our 3G sensors prior to the end of 2022, which would accelerate the costs” Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 22:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
- User:Ptrnext Hello! Proposing changes on behalf of my employer, ShotSpotter, Inc. since I have a conflict of interest. Thanks again for your edits last time. Wondering if you might have a moment to review another round? Thanks! Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
- Done. Note that for #1, "In 2021" is misleading, so I've changed it to "As of 2021". Ptrnext (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
- Makes sense. Thanks! User:Ptrnext Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Request for New Section edit
 | Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. |
Hello! Proposing changes on behalf of my employer, ShotSpotter, Inc. since I have a conflict of interest. Proposing the addition of a new section summarizing how ShotSpotter's gunshot detection works.
Proposed New Section Title: How It Works
Proposed Text: ShotSpotter is an acoustic gunshot detection system that uses a series of sensors to identify and locate gunfire. Sensors capture the time and audio of all "pops, booms and bangs" and send data to machine algorithms for real-time analysis. One algorithm determines location through triangulation, while another eliminates similar-sounding impulses, such as fireworks, that aren't gunshots.
Incidents of possible gunfire are then sent to human reviewers in ShotSpotter’s Incident Review Center (IRC) for final confirmation before notifying police. The company claims this entire process occurs in less than 60 seconds.
Language Used in Citation: “ShotSpotter uses an array of acoustic sensors that are connected wirelessly to ShotSpotter’s centralized cloud-based application to detect and locate gunshots using triangulation. Each acoustic sensor captures the time and audio associated with sounds that may represent gunfire. The data is used to locate the incident and is then filtered by machine algorithms to classify the event as a potential gunshot. Acoustic experts in ShotSpotter’s Incident Review Center then confirm the incident is indeed gunfire before contacting local police, a process the company claims takes less than 60 seconds from the time of the shooting.”
Language Used in Citation: Once the sensors are placed, the technology company marks the location. The technology uses two primary algorithms in the real-time analysis of sounds. One algorithm determines the location of “pops, booms, and bangs.” It uses the speed of the sound and the times when the sound reaches different sensors. The second algorithm allows a machine to filter out similar sounds that aren’t gunshots such as fireworks and helicopters. Human reviewers then filter out any extraneous noise before determining the audio picked up a gunshot and alerting police. That process takes an average of 45 to 60 seconds, said Teachman, the ShotSpotter representative. Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 21:53, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
- This seems like something that belongs on a marketing page. There are citations- meaning this text appears in news articles- but it isn't objective or unbiased. Some of the phraseology must be from the company- look at how common this text is: ShotSpotter is an acoustic gunshot detection system that uses a series of sensors to identify and locate gunfire. Sensors capture the time and audio of all "pops, booms and bangs". Looking at "detect and locate gunshots using triangulation" led me quickly to this "ShotSpotter Frequently Asked Questions". tedder (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- I would definetely not be comfortable adding this without also detailing how it doesn't work. As purported in sources like these:
- https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2017/11/17/shot-spotter-technology-relshot-spotter-technology-coming-under-increased-scrutiny-judicial-communit/844335001/
- https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2018/05/31/silvon-simmons-rochester-police-shotspotter-attempted-murder-officer-cleared-charges/659848002/
- https://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/San-Antonio-police-cut-pricey-gunshot-detection-11824797.php ––FormalDude talk 07:48, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Tedder @FormalDude: I legitimately understand the concern. My goal is not to imply or suggest the technology works. It is simply to include an objective explanation of process/function to ensure the rest of the article--including the criticisms--make sense. For an example, see the "Function" section on the Taser page.
- My proposal is simply to articulate that the company's gunshot detection technology uses a series of sensors, a pair of algorithms, and that all incidents are reviewed by a human in the company's Incident Review Center before being sent to police. Totally accept that my language might feel too "market-y". My apologies. I have no agenda to use certain "approved" words - I simply hope to convey a technical process in an extremely concise and objective way. Something like:
- "ShotSpotter's gunshot detection system utilizes a series of sensors to capture loud, impulsive sounds. When such sounds are identified, sensors send data to a pair of algorithms responsible for identifying a location and determining if the event can be classified as potential gunfire. Employees at the company's Incident Review Center are charged with confirming incidents and notifying local police. The company claims this process occurs in less than 60 seconds"
- Please feel free to edit the above paragraph. Would love to provide feedback to your edits and perhaps offer other editors an opportunity to make suggestions.
- Thanks!
- Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Partly done I added a design section to the article. ––FormalDude talk 05:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Request edit to History (3) edit
| | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Hello! Proposing changes on behalf of my employer, ShotSpotter, Inc. since I have a conflict of interest. Proposing updating information in sentence dealing with gross revenue and year over year square miles added/number of cities added. Can editors kindly make these changes on my behalf? Thank you!
Proposed Change
Original Text: "The company's gross revenues were $45.7 million in 2020 (increased coverage by 132 square miles and 15 cities), up from $40.8 million in 2019 (increased coverage by 82 square miles and 6 cities), up from $34.8 million in 2018 (increased coverage by 168 square miles and 10 cities).”
New Text: "The company's gross revenues were $58.2 million in 2021 (increased coverage by 49 square miles and 10 cities), up from $45.7 million in 2020 (increased coverage by 49 square miles and 10 cities), up from $40.8 million in 2019 (increased coverage by 82 square miles and 6 cities).”
Citation: https://sec.report/Document/0000950170-22-004805/
Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
- Done. ––FormalDude (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks! Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
Request edit to Accuracy edit
| | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. |
Hello! Proposing changes on behalf of my employer, ShotSpotter, Inc. since I have a conflict of interest. Proposing updating the sentence referencing the VICE Motherboard article to mention the editor's note issued by VICE on 8/2. Also proposing expanding the sentence related to ACLU and privacy concerns to reference A.) NYU's Policing Project audit/assessment and recommendations, as well as B.) viewpoints from the chair of the Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission. Can editors kindly make these changes on my behalf? Thank you!
Proposed Change #1
Original Text: Vice's Motherboard noted that ShotSpotter "frequently modify alerts at the request of police departments."
New Text: Vice's Motherboard noted that ShotSpotter "frequently modify alerts at the request of police departments," though in the specific case of Michael Williams, the piece was later updated with an editor’s note clarifying that this was not the case.
Language Used in Citation: "Editor’s Note: Following the publication of this article, VICE received copies of court documents from the Michael Williams case, which show that ShotSpotter did not change the coordinates of the gunfire by a mile, but had identified the same intersection for the gunfire in both its initial real-time alert and in its later detailed forensic report."
Proposed Change #2
Original Text: The ACLU has raised questions about privacy and surveillance, as the detectors keep hours or days of continuous audio.
New Text: The ACLU has raised questions about privacy and surveillance, as the detectors keep hours or days of continuous audio. Sharing these concerns, a 2019 audit and assessment by NYU’s Policing Project nevertheless deemed ShotSpotter's privacy risks “relatively limited” and added that a list of recommendations it had presented to the company to make its technology more “privacy protective” had been adopted "nearly" in full. The implementation of these safeguards, which included reducing the duration of stored audio and improving internal policies and controls, was viewed positively by the chair of the City of Oakland Privacy Advisory Commission, who called them “significant steps in the right direction.”
Citation #1: https://www.policingproject.org/shotspotter (click on read full report)
Language Used in Citation #1: "Having conducted a thorough review of SST's current policies and procedures, and as explained in more detail below, we believe thot on the whole ShotSpotter presents relatively limited privacy risks. In our anolysis, the primary personaI privacy concern with ShotSpotter is the possibility that the technology could capture voices of individuaIs near the sensors, and conceivably could be used for deliberate voice surveillance. Although we believe the risk of this occurring is aIready relatively low, this report offers a variety of recommendations for how SST can make ShotSpotter even more privacy protective. ... As discussed in more detail in this report, our recommendations cover a wide range of issues, chief among them that SST: 1. Substantially reduce the duration of audio stored on ShotSpotter sensors; 2. Commit to denying requests and chaIIenging subpoenas for sensor audio; 5. Commit to not sharing specific sensor location; and 4. Improve internaI controls and supervision regarding audio access. SST has adopted nearly all of our recommendations verbatim..."
Language Used in Citation #2: “We haven’t had a vendor that’s gone so far out of its way to do everything correctly,” says Brian Hofer, a privacy advocate and chair of the commission. “They didn’t just do a privacy audit or just talk to the ACLU or just talk to experts. After, they amended their practices and really made these significant steps in the right direction.”” Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 17:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
- @FormalDude @Ptrnext Hello! Proposing changes on behalf of my employer, ShotSpotter, Inc. since I have a conflict of interest. Thanks again for your edits last time. Wondering if you might have a moment to review another round? Thanks. Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 01:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
- "Proposed change 1" is pretty flimsy. ShotSpotter's (dismissed) defamation case against VICE was about whether "changed all the time" was a true statement or hyperbole. It's hyperbole and yet it's a true statement. From the dismissal:
Q. Mr. Greene, I want to stop you right there. This note here denotes some employee at [ShotSpotter] changed the classification per the instruction of the customer?A. Per the customer's instruction, yes.
Q. Is that something that occurs in the regular course of business at [ShotSpotter]?
A. Yes, it is. It happens all the time.
...
It is apparent, from Greene’s testimony, that there is a pattern of alterations, and that these alterations sometimes come by request of police departments.
++++++++++
Hi tedder (talk): Thank you for sharing your concerns. I think my primary feedback at this point is that the sentence which reads, "Vice's Motherboard noted that ShotSpotter "frequently modify alerts at the request of police departments" is not entirely accurate. I re-read the VICE piece and what it actually says is that what they learned suggests that ShotSpotter frequently modifies alerts. With this is mind, I would submit that it is more accurate to say:
New Text: Vice's Motherboard reviewed information that "suggests the company's analysts frequently modify alerts at the request of police departments."
As far as Change #2 is concerned, I appreciate your feedback. I'll note that I have no intention of padding this section with verbiage or outweighing the ACLU concerns. The key point here is the 2019 audit and assessment by NYU’s Policing Project, founded and directed by [E. Friedman|Barry Friedman], and a credible academic authority on the study of policing. Their audit and assessment was directed towards assessing ShotSpotter's impact on privacy, just like the ACLU's report, and their report specifically deemed ShotSpotter's privacy risks “relatively limited.” Contending this is a relevant, citable, factual data point. Mentioning the Oakland Privacy Commission follows the same principle. The first such commission in the country, it has become a model for other cities. For this reason, I would consider a quote/reaction from Brian Hofer, the commission's chair on the subject of ShotSpotter and privacy to be relevant. Given the feedback, here's my suggested language to give equal weight to each side of the argument:
New Text: The ACLU has raised questions about privacy and surveillance, as the detectors keep hours or days of continuous audio. A 2019 audit and assessment by NYU’s Policing Project, however, deemed ShotSpotter's privacy risks “relatively limited" and added the company had adopted its recommendations for privacy protection, a decision that Brian Hofer, chair of the Oakland Privacy Commission called “significant steps.”
Inviting tedder (talk), FormalDude and Ptrnext to review and let me know your thoughts. Looking forward to your feedback and collaborating on a resolution. Thanks! Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
- Proposing changes on behalf of my employer, ShotSpotter, Inc. since I have a conflict of interest.**
- Hi tedder, FormalDude and Ptrnext, would you mind reviewing these two suggested edits? Updated today. I have revised substantially given recent feedback and would like to find agreement. Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks! Jdav at Shotspotter (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Update headings? edit
The current heading structure doesn't really apply to Seattle; but the decision in Seattle seems highly relevant to readers looking to learn about ShotSpotter. Specifically, the overall heading is "Installations" and the subheading is "Pending." But in Seattle, a $1 million allocation was proposed by the mayor last year, but City Council declined to include that funding in its budget. So, while it may be true that no such decisions are ever truly "final," it seems there is no active decision "pending" in Seattle.
What's the best way to address this? A new subheading? Rename the main heading? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
- Hey @Peteforsyth: I added a subsection under the "installations" section of "rejected". It could be argued it isn't an installation if it never happened, but it seems like promoting "rejected" to a section wasn't appropriate. An argument could be made they would be better as prose in "history". tedder (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
- This seems good to me. Imperfect, but the meaning is clear. I do wonder about the order of cities within the (increasingly long) lists. They appear to be alphabetical by state, with a few exceptions. That order might not immediately jump out to the reader; I wonder about changing it to alphabetical by city, or else, grouping them more explicitly by state. (Motivating issue...I was curious about Chicago's current status, and had a bit of trouble finding it in the lists.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)