Whether you think ShotSpotter is a crime-fighting tool or an expensive failure, one thing is certain: Research and analysis about the technology enriched public conversation.<\/p>\n
Much of the research produced on what ShotSpotter gets right<\/a> and what it misses<\/a> was generated because of a mistake.<\/p>\n In 2023, freelance journalist Matthew Chapman submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for data Chicago police had provided to economists studying<\/a> the gunshot-detection system\u2019s effects on police response times.<\/p>\n To Chapman\u2019s surprise, CPD denied his request and forwarded a letter<\/a> from ShotSpotter\u2019s parent company, SoundThinking, which stated CPD should not have shared the data in response to any public records request. \u201cAt its core, the real issue is that Chicago should not have created and released the various documents for any of the noted requests \u2014 nor did SoundThinking know Chicago was doing so. The requestor never should have received the \u201cmany years\u201d worth of alerts that he apparently believes are, and should be, the norm.\u201d<\/p>\n CPD\u2019s FOIA mistake shared a granular version of ShotSpotter alert data that enabled researchers to test and ultimately question ShotSpotter\u2019s claims that its product improved officer response times to shootings. It\u2019s an unlikely but remarkable story: A company that insists its data is a trade secret ended up inadvertently sparking more sophisticated public-policy debates about surveillance technology.<\/p>\n Chicago\u2019s contract<\/a> with ShotSpotter, which expired in September 2024<\/a>, explicitly says: \u201cCity Data is the property of the City and Gunfire Data is the property of the Contractor.\u201d The contract also underscores the contractor and its licensors \u201cretain all ownership of all intellectual-property rights in and to all Gunfire Data,\u201d reinforcing that the information generated about gunfire in city neighborhoods sits under the vendor\u2019s control, not Chicago\u2019s.<\/p>\n Companies now trying to sell artificial intelligence-driven analytics to governments for predictive policing, facial recognition, social-media monitoring, automated license-plate readers and more also seek contracts that privatize the technology\u2019s gains and shift all risk to local governments.<\/p>\n We already know from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement\u2019s recent actions in Chicago that technologies meant for local policing can be used for political repression and persecution. At a moment when an authoritarian president is seeking every tool possible to target his perceived political enemies, there is no better time for Chicago to rethink how it does business with technology firms.<\/p>\n If the city cannot see, study or share the data private firms collect from the city, then it cannot evaluate whether the technologies work or whether they harm communities. The ShotSpotter saga shows that meaningful debate and reform hinge on independent scrutiny. Without access, there\u2019s no accountability.<\/p>\n