[00:00:02]
ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY, WE'RE GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED AS WE HAVE A QUORUM.
I'M GONNA CALL TODAY'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER.
THE CALL OF TODAY'S MEETING IS TO REVIEW THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S USE OF SHOT SPOTTER TECHNOLOGY, ALSO KNOWN AS SOUND THINKING, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE THROUGH THE ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT, CMA, SORRY, COUNSELOR ZUBIE.
SORRY, CAN YOU JUST PULL THE MIC CLOSER? JUST YOUR SOUND IS A LITTLE OFF.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? BETTER TO BE RIGHT INTO IT.
DO YOU WANT ME TO START OVER? YES, PLEASE.
I'M GONNA CALL TODAY'S PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE MEETING TO ORDER.
THE CALL OF TODAY'S MEETING IS TO REVIEW THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S USE OF SHOTSPOTTER TECHNOLOGY, ALSO KNOWN AS SOUND THINKING, WHICH WAS REFERRED TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE THROUGH THE ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT, CMA 20 26 44 ON MARCH 9TH, 2026.
THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS A ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS PRESENT.
THAT'S ALL FIVE MEMBERS PRESENT.
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER TWO OF THE ACTS OF 2025, ADOPTED BY MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL COURT AND APPROVED BY THE GOVERNOR, THE CITY HAS AUTHORIZED TO USE REMOTE PARTICIPATION AT MEETINGS OF THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL AND ITS COMMITTEES.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDS THIS MEETING AND MAKES IT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC FOR FUTURE VIEWING.
THIRD PARTIES MAY ALSO BE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING THIS MEETING.
IN ADDITION TO HAVING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL PARTICIPATE REMOTELY, WE HAVE ALSO SET UP ZOOM TELECONFERENCE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.
EACH SPEAKER TODAY WILL HAVE TWO MINUTES, AND PUBLIC COMMENT WILL CLOSE AT THREE 30.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE PUBLIC COMMENT, PLEASE VISIT THE CITY COUNCIL SECTION OF THE CITY'S WEBPAGE, INSTRUCTIONS FOR HOW TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK OR POSTED THERE.
ONCE YOU HAVE COMPLETED SIGNUP PROCEDURE, YOU'LL RECEIVE A LINK TO THE ZOOM MEETING.
TO WATCH THE MEETING, PLEASE TUNE INTO CHANNEL 22 OR VISIT THE OPEN MEETING PORTAL ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
WITH THAT, ALL OF TODAY'S VOTES, IF ANY, WILL BE BY ROLL CALL.
SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
THE ORDER OF TODAY'S HEARING IS GONNA BE PUBLIC COMMENT.
THEN WE'RE GONNA HAVE PRESENTATIONS FROM INVITED SPEAKERS, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THEN COUNCIL DISCUSSION BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH PUBLIC COMMENT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A QUICK ROUND OF INTRODUCTIONS WITH THE NAME AND TITLE.
UM, JUST BEFORE WE TURN TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
HI, MY NAME'S MASON KOTZ, AND, UH, I'M A RESIDENT OF CAMBRIDGE AND I WORK HERE AND I'M HERE TODAY IN MY CAPACITY AS COUNSEL FOR THE BLACK RESPONSE.
HELLO, SPENCER PISTON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, BOSTON UNIVERSITY.
STEPHANIE CAMBRIDGE, RESIDENT MEMBER OF THE BLACK RESPONSE.
I'M A CAMBRIDGE RESIDENT AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE A CLU OF MASSACHUSETTS.
GOOD AFTERNOON, FRED CABRAL, SUPERINTENDENT SUPPORT SERVICES DIVISION, CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
GOOD AFTERNOON, PAULINE WELLS, UH, POLICE COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE PD.
JOHN BOYLE, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT CAMBRIDGE POLICE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION SECTION.
UH, PATTY NOLAN, CITY COUNSELOR, MARK MCGOVERN, CITY COUNCIL CHIEF AND SABRINA WHEELER, CITY COUNSELOR.
WOULD YOU GUYS ALSO LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOURSELVES? THANK YOU.
UH, MEGAN, BEAR CITY SOLICITOR AND TURN IT OVER TO KATE.
KATE OLA, FIRST ASSISTANT CITY SOLICITOR.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN TO MADAM CLERK FOR HELP WITH PUBLIC COMMENT.
OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS SIOBHAN MCDONOUGH, FOLLOWED BY MARIE HOBART.
THEN CHRISTINA WNI MCCLAIN SIOBHAN, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I'M A MEMBER OF THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST OF AMERICA, AND, UH, UAW LOCAL 2320.
I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO SHOT SPOTTER.
UM, I WANNA START WITH A QUICK STORY.
14 MONTHS AGO, UM, THE COUNCIL, A PREVIOUS ITERATION OF THE COUNCIL APPROVED AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS OVER LOTS OF COMMUNITY WARNINGS ABOUT HOW THOSE COULD BE MISUSED.
UM, PUBLIC PRESSURE AFTER THOSE WERE APPROVED CONTINUED TO GROW.
MORE AND MORE REPORTS CAME OUT ABOUT MISUSES OF THE DATA ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY BY OUT-OF-STATE POLICE DEPARTMENTS, BY FEDS, AND BY THE CONTRACTOR ITSELF.
FINALLY, AFTER MONTHS AND MONTHS OF EXPOSING RESIDENTS DATA WITH THAT PROGRAM, THE COUNCIL ACTED AND REMOVED THAT, UH, BREACH OF OUR SECURITY.
WE HAVE A REALLY SIMILAR SITUATION HERE.
UH, RESIDENTS WHO YOU'LL HEAR FROM TODAY OVERWHELMINGLY WILL WANT THIS REMOVED.
UH, THE PRIVACY CONCERNS ARE SO CLEAR.
UH, THIS IS A SURVEILLANCE CONTRACTOR
[00:05:01]
WHOSE ENTIRE BUSINESS MODEL IS RELIANT ON KEEPING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAPPY, UH, AND WE ARE GIVING THEM, UH, THE RIGHT TO OWN AUDIO RECORDINGS OF OUR RESIDENTS.ARE WE REALLY WILLING TO BET OUR RESIDENTS PRIVACY AND SAFETY ON THE HOPE THAT A SURVEILLANCE CONTRACTOR AND DONALD TRUMP'S FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE GOING TO USE THE RECORDINGS IN OUR COMMUNITIES WITH THE UTMOST CARE AND RESPECT FOR OUR RESIDENTS RIGHTS? DO WE THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE PERFECTLY ABOVE BOARD? UM, BRIEFLY, I, I'M NOT HERE ON BEHALF OF MY EMPLOYER, BUT I AM A CIVIL RIGHTS ATTORNEY IN MY DAY JOB.
UM, THE CITY OF CHICAGO ALSO HAD SHOT SPOTTER SET UP IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.
THEY SPECIFICALLY HAD IT SET UP IN POOR BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES, AND THEY WERE SUED OVER ALL OF THE, UH, WRONG POLICE, UH, REPORTS AND THE POLICE RESPONSES THAT WERE COMING INTO THEIR CITY.
THEY SETTLED THAT LAWSUIT AND REMOVED CHAT SPOTTER.
IT'S TIME FOR US TO DO THE SAME AND TAKE THESE RECORDING DEVICES OUT OF OUR COMMUNITY BEFORE WE GET SUED OURSELVES, OR BEFORE THEY PUT OUR RESIDENTS EVEN MORE AT RISK.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARIE HOBART.
MARIE, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF.
HI, EVERYONE, MY NAME IS MARIE HOBART.
I'M A PSYCHIATRIST, A PHYSICIAN IN WORCESTER, MASSACHUSETTS, BUT I'M A LIFELONG MEMBER OF THE MASSACHUSETTS PSYCHIATRIC SOCIETY, AND WE HAVE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE BLACK RESPONSE IN CAMBRIDGE HEART IN RECENT YEARS.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK TODAY AGAINST THE USE OF SHOT SPOTTER.
AS WE KNOW, IT'S AN AUDIO SURVEILLANCE, UH, TECH TECHNOLOGY, UH, AND THAT THESE DEVICES ARE REPORTED TO PICK UP THE SOUND OF GUNSHOTS THAT ARE NOT OTHERWISE REPORTED TO 9 1 1.
THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO TARGET PRIMARILY BLACK, BROWN, AND POORER COMMUNITIES.
A PRIVATE COMPANY THAT OWNS THIS DATA IS FUNDED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
UH, THIS JUST ADDS TO THE FEAR THAT IS ALREADY RAMPANT WITHIN OUR COMMUNITIES, UH, ACROSS THE STATE, CAMBRIDGE, WORCESTER, UH, OTHER PLACES AS WELL.
UH, THIS PERVASIVE FEAR OF BEING MONITORED, SURVEILLED AND TARGETED, UH, THE MENTAL HEALTH FOR INDIVIDUALS EXPERIENCING THESE.
THIS LEVEL OF SURVEILLANCE IS NOT TO BE UNDERESTIMATED.
THE MENTAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES, THERE'S NO CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THIS DETERS GUN VIOLENCE, INCREASED POLICE SURVEILLANCE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO POTENTIALLY NOT NECESSARILY BE BENEFICIAL IN THE COMMUNITIES WHERE, UH, THERE IS MORE SURVEILLANCE.
THE COST OF SHOT SPOTTER COULD BE MUCH BETTER USED FOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, OUTREACH, OTHER THINGS THAT ARE SHOWN TO ACTUALLY DETER GUN VIOLENCE AND PROMOTE THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY.
UH, SO I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTINA WNE MCLEAN, FOLLOWED BY TETTE MCDOWELL.
MY NAME IS CHRISTINA WNE MCLEAN.
I LIVE AT EIGHT CHAUNCEY STREET.
I SUPPORT THE REMOVAL OF THE SHOT SPOTTER DEVICES BECAUSE THEY CREATE CONDITIONS FOR THE WORST OF THE WORST IN TERMS OF CITY GOVERNANCE AND POLICING.
THIS TECHNOLOGY VIOLATES CIVIL LIBERTIES.
IT DISCRIMINATES, IT WASTES MONEY, IT INCITES VIOLENCE AND ENCOURAGES SILENCE.
I DO NOT WANT SOMETHING I SAY TO A VULNERABLE NEIGHBOR IN PRIVATE TO BE RECORDED AND PASSED ALONG TO POLICE OR IMMIGRATION OR ANOTHER COMPANY LOOKING TO MAKE A BUCK.
I DO NOT WANT THE POLICE TO STOP TO BE CALLED TO STOP FRISK ARREST OR SHOOT MY BLACK AND BROWN NEIGHBORS ANYTIME A LOUD NOISE GOES OFF IN THE PORT OR COAST.
I DO NOT WANT MY TAX DOLLARS GOING TO A TECHNOLOGY THAT ONLY HAS A POSITIVE EFFECT ON ITS CORPORATE SHAREHOLDERS' EARNINGS.
I AM A NEW CAMBRIDGE RESIDENT.
I MOVED HERE IN THE LAST MONTH BECAUSE CAMBRIDGE HAS A LOT TO OFFER ITS PEOPLE.
HOWEVER, AFTER SEEING HOW THESE DEVICES AND THE POLICY MAKING AROUND THEM HAVE BEEN MANAGED, I CANNOT SAY THAT THE CITY'S GOVERNANCE IS AMONG ITS BENEFITS.
HOW CAN WE CLAIM TO HAVE A DEMOCRACY WHEN THE PEOPLE MOST DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY CITY POLICY, MANY OF WHOM ARE IN PUBLIC HOUSING, ARE BEING SPIED ON? WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE IN NEWTOWN COURT, THE ONES WHO KNOW ABOUT SHAS SPOTTER AND HATE IT WILL SPEAK ONLY ON CONDITION OF ANONYMITY.
HOW CAN WE EXPECT THEM TO SPEAK UP FOR THEIR RIGHTS WHEN DOING SO COULD PUT THEM AT ODDS WITH THE CITY AND ESPECIALLY ITS POLICE THAT THEY DEPEND ON? MANY SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES PREVENT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT.
SHOTSPOTTER THREATENS TO PREVENT FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
WHY ARE WE INVESTING IN SURVEILLANCE INSTEAD OF SERVICES WHEN WE KNOW, EVEN WITHOUT HEARING FROM FOLKS IN PUBLIC MEETINGS, THAT BASICS LIKE HOUSING ARE STILL AN URGENT NEED FOR SO MANY.
[00:10:01]
SPEAKING UP TODAY BECAUSE MANY OF MY NIG NEW NEIGHBORS CANNOT.I MAY NOT BE A FIREWORK OR A CAR BACKFIRING, BUT I HOPE MY COMMENTS TRIGGER A ROBUST RESPONSE AND THE CONTRACT, REMOVE THE MICROPHONES, STOP SURVEILLING YOUR PEOPLE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS TETTE MCDOWELL, FOLLOWED BY MARILYN FRANKENSTEIN.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UM, THANK THE CITY COUNCIL FOR LIKE TAKING THIS MEETING.
UM, I AM A RESIDENT OF SOMERVILLE, UM, IN THE WINTER HILL AREA.
I'M ALSO A TEACHING, UM, ARTIST OVER IN CAMBRIDGE, AND MY CHILD IS A STUDENT, UM, REGISTERED IN CAMBRIDGE.
I'M, I'M ALSO, UM, LEARNING ABOUT THIS, UM, FROM THE BLACK RESPONSE AND I WAS REALLY SHOCKED TO KNOW THAT IN AREAS OF MASSACHUSETTS THAT WE ARE BEING RECORDED AT ALL TIMES, UM, AND HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THAT.
IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MASSACHUSETTS IS A STATE KNOWN FOR ITS GREAT CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTIONS FOR ITS RESIDENTS.
AND, UM, UNDER THE, SORRY, UNDER THE, UM, MASS GENERAL LAW 2 72, SECTION 99 SECRETLY RECORDING ANY ORAL OR WIRE COMMUNICATIONS IS A FELONY, A FELONY PUNISHABLE.
WHY FIVE YEARS IN STATE PRISON AND AT LEAST A $10,000 FINE.
SO IMAGINE MY SURPRISE WHEN, UM, I LEARNED THAT SHOT SPOTTERS ARE RECORDING.
WE DON'T KNOW WHO HAS THE DATA.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY IS BEING RECORDED WHEN RECORDED, HOW LONG, YOU KNOW, I HAVE FRIENDS OVER IN THE PORT AND I HAVE VISITED THEM, AND IT'S VERY DISCONCERTING TO THINK THAT WHEN I'M VISITING MY FRIENDS IN THE PORT OR WHEN I'M WALKING NEAR THE PROJECTS OVER NEAR MY HOME IN SOMERVILLE, THERE'S LIKE A, YOU KNOW, A CONVENIENCE STORE OVER THERE.
THERE'S A PARKING LOT TO KNOW THAT I DON'T HAVE PRIVACY.
YOU KNOW, LIKE WHO IS GETTING THIS INFORMATION? WHO HAS THE CONTRACT? YOU KNOW, WHY ISN'T THIS INFORMATION SHARED WITH THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE? AND WHEN YOU HAVE A MEETING AT THREE O'CLOCK ON A WEEKDAY, PEOPLE CAN'T BE HERE AS EASILY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MARILYN FRANKENSTEIN, FOLLOWED BY ALEXANDRA THORN, THEN VIRGINIA KUO.
WHY, WHY AM I HERE? I'M A LITTLE OLD LADY, 40 YEAR RESIDENT OF CAMBRIDGE, LIVING HERE ALMOST HALF MY LIFE.
AGAIN, WHY AM I HERE AGAIN? OF COURSE, I WANNA FEEL SAFE IN MY COMMUNITY.
SHOT SPOTTER AND OTHER SUCH SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ALONG WITH HEAVY POLICE ACTIVITY MAKE ME FEEL SCARED, NOT SAFE.
A CITY COUNCIL THAT HEARS EXPERTS WITH SERIOUS OVERWHELMING TESTIMONY AGAINST SHOTSPOTTER, BUT ALMOST A YEAR LATER HAS STILL NOT DISMANTLED.
SHOTSPOTTER MAKES ME A RETIRED PROFESSOR OF QUANTITATIVE REASONING IN ARGUMENTS.
TODAY WE WILL HEAR MORE EXPERT TESTIMONY, MORE FACTS AGAINST KEEPING SHOTSPOTTER MORE WELL-REASONED ARGUMENTS BASED ON FACTUAL EVIDENCE AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
TESTIMONY ABOUT THE INVASIVE AUDIO SURVEILLANCE WHERE WE HAVE TO TRUST THAT THE PRIVATE FOR-PROFIT COMPANY WILL NOT USE OUR DATA AGAINST OUR CONSTITUTIONAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS TESTIMONY ABOUT HIGH FALSE POSITIVE RATES INVOLVING RACIAL DISPARITIES AND INJUSTICES.
TESTIMONY ABOUT LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND LACK OF CITY COUNCIL OVERSIGHT AND AS FOUND IN ST.
LOUIS IN CHICAGO, TESTIMONY ABOUT THE UNRELIABILITY OF SHOTSPOTTER TESTIMONY ONLY BEING COUNTERED BY FEAR MONGERING AND THE VORACIOUS PROFIT MONSTER.
SURELY INSTEAD, WE COULD INVEST IN EDUCATION, HOUSING, AND OTHER PROGRAMS THAT WOULD DRASTICALLY REDUCE CRIME, ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR ANY SUCH INTRUSIVE SURVEILLANCE DISMANTLE SHOT SPOTTER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ALEXANDRA THORN.
MY NAME IS ALEXANDRA THORN AND I'M A MEMBER OF DIGITAL FOURTH.
I LIVE IN SOMERVILLE AND SPEND SIGNIFICANT TIME IN CAMBRIDGE.
THANK YOU CHAIR ZUBE AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE FOR HOLDING THIS IMPORTANT HEARING.
ON SHOT SPOTTER, I STRONGLY URGE THE COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND THE IMMEDIATE DISCONTINUATION OF CAMBRIDGE'S USE OF SHOT SPOTTER.
DESPITE CLAIMS BY THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE
[00:15:01]
THAT SHOT SPOTTER ONLY RECORDS GUNSHOTS AND SIMILAR SOUNDS, THE MICROPHONES ARE ALWAYS ON AND RECORDING 24 HOURS A DAY EVERY DAY.RECORDINGS CAPTURED BY SHOTSPOTTER ARE OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY SOUND THINKING, NOT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT CLEAR HOW LONG THE DATA ARE RETAINED, STATEMENTS FROM THE COMPANY SUGGEST IT MAY BE FOR 74 HOURS, 72 HOURS, OR IF NOT LONGER.
THERE IS NO WAVE FOR THE CITY TO KNOW OR OR TO CONTROL HOW THE RECORDINGS ARE USED.
THIS IS CONCERNING IN ITSELF, BUT ESPECIALLY UNDER SECTION 7 0 2 OF THE FEDERAL INTELLIGENCE ACT, WHICH DUE TO THE A 2024 AMENDMENT, ALLOWS THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY TO SECRETLY COMPEL BUSINESSES TO SHARE DATA WITH THEM.
UNDER THIS POLICY, THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT SOUND THINK IT CAN PROVIDE, THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THEY HAVE NOT SHARED OR WILL NOT SHARE RECORDINGS WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
CORPORATE WAREHOUSING OF SURVEILLANCE DATA IS CONCERNING IN ITSELF, AS IS THE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN ACCESS THIS DATA WITHOUT A WARRANT.
BUT THIS IS ESPECIALLY ALARMING UNDER THE CURRENT US ADMINISTRATION, WHICH HAS MOBILIZED FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGAINST IMMIGRANTS AND AGAINST ANYONE WITH VIEWS DIFFERING FROM THOSE OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND WHICH IS WORKING TO BREAK DOWN DATA SILOS BETWEEN FEDERAL AGENCIES.
PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING AND IMMEDIATELY HALT THE USE OF SHOT SPOTTER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS VIRGINIA CUO.
VIRGINIA, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD AFTERNOON, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I HAVE BEEN A PROUD CAMBRIDGE RESIDENT FOR OVER 11 YEARS, AND I'M HONORED TO HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A CAMBRIDGE VOLUNTEER OR OUR RECIPIENT FOR MY WORK SUPPORTING OUR COMMUNITY'S MOST VULNERABLE NEIGHBORHOODS.
I'M SPEAKING TONIGHT TO EXPRESS MY DEEP CONCERN ABOUT THE CITY'S CONTINUED USE OF THE SHOTSPOTTER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
THIS TECHNOLOGY WAS IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT A DIRECT CONTRACT WITH CAMBRIDGE, WITHOUT A COUNCIL VOTE AND WITHOUT THE TRANSPARENT PUBLIC REVIEW.
OUR SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE NORMALLY REQUIRES THAT IS A FAILURE OF MUNICIPAL DEMOCRACY AND IT UNDERMINES THE TRUST RESIDENCE PLACE IN THE CITY.
GOVERNMENT CHAT SPOTTER IS NOT SIMPLY A GUNSHOT DETECTOR.
ITS MICROPHONES ARE ALWAYS ON AS WE'VE REINSTATED OVER AND OVER.
UM, IT IS CAPABLE OF CAPTURING EVERYDAY CONVERSATION AS IT HAS BEEN PROVEN AT A NORMAL VOLUME FOR UP TO 50 FEET AWAY, EVEN THOUGH EVEN THROUGH WALLS AUDIO IS STORED AND CAN BE REPURPOSED LATER.
THIS IS CONTINUOUS AUDIO SURVEILLANCE IN PUBLIC SPACES AND IT IMPACTS ALL OF US.
EQUALLY TROUBLING FOR ME IS IN CANBERRA, CHUCK SPOTTER HAS AN 82% FALSE POSITIVE RATE.
MOST ALERTS DO NOT CORRESPOND TO ACTUAL GUN FIRES.
THAT MEANS THAT POLICE RESOURCES ARE BEING DIVERTED BASED ON UNRELIABLE DATA WITHOUT CLEAR EVIDENCE THAT THIS SYSTEM PREVENTS OR REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE.
AND LET'S BE CLEAR ABOUT WHERE THESE SENSORS ARE PLACED OVERWHELMINGLY IN THE PORT AND RIVERSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE BLACK, BROWN AND IMMIGRANT FAMILIES LIVE.
MEANWHILE, IN WELFARE AREAS LIKE WEST CAMBRIDGE, THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME LEVEL OF MONITORING.
PUBLIC SAFETY CANNOT MEAN UNEQUAL SURVEILLANCE.
FINALLY, CAMBRIDGE IS DESIGNATED A SANCTUARY CITY AND WELCOMING COMMUNITY CHILD SUPPORT TIES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DATA TO BE ACCESSED BY EYES DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS THESE COMMITMENTS.
WE CANNOT CLAIM TO PROTECT IMMIGRANT FAMILIES WHILE DEPLOYING TOOLS THAT MAY EXPOSE VIRGINIA, YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED.
PLEASE EMAIL THE REMAINDER OF YOUR COMMENT.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BETSY O FOLLOWED BY MISSY PAGE, THEN SHELLY REMAN, BETSY.
WE WILL GO TO SHELLY REMAN, FOLLOWED BY, SORRY, MISSY PAGE, FOLLOWED BY SHELLY REMAN, UH, MISSY PAGE, CAMBRIDGE RESIDENT, ONE 70 GORE STREET.
I'M SPEAKING TO THE SHOT SPOTTER ADDENDA ITEM, DIGNITY, TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, PROTECTION FOR THE MOST VULNERABLE, PROTECTING OUR IMMIGRANT NEIGHBORS.
THESE ARE ALL WORDS AND PHRASES THAT YOU ALL USE DURING YOUR CAMPAIGNS FOR CITY COUNCIL.
THE USE OF SHOT SPOTTER IS DIRECT CONTRADICTION OF THESE PRINCIPLES, AND I'M ASKING FOR CITY COUNCIL TO DISCONTINUE THE USE OF SHOT SPOTTER IN CAMBRIDGE EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY.
THE TWO YEAR PILOT PROGRAM FOR SHOTSPOTTER THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2014 ENDED A DECADE AGO IN 2016.
YET SHOTSPOTTER HAS CONTINUED TO OPERATE IN CAMBRIDGE.
AT THIS CURRENT TIME, CAMBRIDGE IS USING A SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM THAT THE CITY COUNCIL NEVER VOTED ON.
[00:20:01]
A FAILURE OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND TO OPERATE TRANSPARENTLY AND A FAILURE TO OPERATE IN THE SPIRIT OF CAMBRIDGE'S SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE.THE CONTINUED USE OF SHOT SPOTTER IN A SANCTUARY CITY COMPLETELY NEGATES OUR CLAIM OF BEING A SANCTUARY CITY.
IT'S FUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND THE DATA COULD BE SHARED WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES INCLUDING ICE.
WHILE THE PRESENTATION TODAY FROM CPD WILL STATE THAT ICE HAS NEVER REQUESTED THAT DATA, THEY COULD REQUEST IT AND LEGALLY IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVIDED.
HOW CAN WE CALL OURSELVES A SANCTUARY CITY? IF WE'RE PARTICIPATING IN A SYSTEM THAT EXPOSES RESIDENT DATA TO FEDERAL ENTITIES, PLEASE END CAMBRIDGE'S PARTICIPATION AND SHOT SPOTTER BY REMOVING ALL MICROPHONES FROM THE CITY REQUIRING A CITY COUNCIL VOTE FOR ANY FUTURE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY REGARDLESS OF THE FUNDING SOURCE AND INVESTING IN COMMUNITY OUTREACH TO HEAR WHAT NEIGHBORS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ALTERNATIVES, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO ARE MOST IMPACTED.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SHELLY REMAN, FOLLOWED BY JULIE DUNCAN.
SHELLY REMAN 2 0 1 FRANKLIN STREET.
I'M ECHOING WHAT EVERYONE HAS BEEN SAYING ABOUT ELIMINATING SHOT SPOTTER.
UM, I'M WITH THE CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS ALLIANCE AS WELL, AND I'M JUST GONNA READ A COUPLE PARAGRAPHS FROM LEE FERRIS'S LETTER TO YOU ALL TODAY THAT, UM, THE RESIDENCE ALLIANCE WOULD LIKE THE CITY TO END THE PARTICIPATION IN SHOT SPOTTER.
WE ASK THAT ALL THE MICROPHONES BE REMOVED AND AS WE'VE HEARD EARLIER, THEY'RE ALL IN RIVERSIDE IN THE PORT.
UM, WE ASK INSTEAD THAT THE CITY INVEST IN COMMUNITY LED PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE FUTURE.
WE WANT THE COUNCIL TO VOTE ON ALL THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, EVEN IF IT'S FREE, IT DOESN'T COST ANYTHING.
YOU KNOW, THIS WAS PUT IN WITHOUT THE COUNCIL PUTTING IT IN.
AND, UM, I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE'S CONVERSATIONS.
GOING TO SOME COMPANY IN SAN FRANCISCO THAT'S THE OWNER OF SUBS OF SHOTSPOTTER, WHICH WE'RE NOT EVEN CONTRACTED WITH.
I GUESS WE ARE VIA THE CITY OF BOSTON, BUT ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE'RE A SANCTUARY CITY, LIKE MISSY JUST SAID, THERE'S A REASON WHY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WOULD LIKE TO GET A HOLD OF CONVERSATIONS OF PEOPLE IN OUR CITY.
AND ANECDOTALLY, I HEARD IT'S ONLY BEEN ONE SHOT THAT WAS ACTUALLY A GUNSHOT THAT WAS CALLED IN.
YOU KNOW, IT'S THE CAR'S BACKFIRING, OTHER THINGS HAPPENING, AND I CAN'T QUITE IMAGINE WHAT THE 4TH OF JULY WILL BE LIKE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JULIE DUNCAN.
JULIE, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UH, FIRST I WANNA VOICE MY SUPPORT FOR AN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OF THE MANY REASONS PEOPLE ARE HERE TODAY, SPEAKING AGAINST SHOT SPOTTER.
UM, MY TESTIMONY WILL FOCUS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF IMMIGRANT SAFETY IN A SANCTUARY CITY.
UM, I DEPOSED DEPLOYING SHOT SPOTTER BECAUSE IT CONFLICTS WITH OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT ALL RESIDENTS, REGARDLESS OF IMMIGRATION, STATE STATUS, FEEL SAFE, PROTECTED, AND ABLE TO LIVE WITHOUT FEAR.
IN A TRUE SANCTUARY CITY, PUBLIC PUBLIC SAFETY DEPENDS ON TRUST.
IMMIGRANT NEIGHBORS MUST BE ABLE TO CALL FOR HELP, SPEAK OPENLY AND GO ABOUT DAILY LIFE WITHOUT WORRYING THAT THEIR WORDS OR MOVEMENTS COULD BE RECORDED OR MISUSED.
SHOTSPOTTER RELIES ON A NETWORK OF ALWAYS ON MICROPHONES THAT CAN CAPTURE STREET LEVEL CONVERSATIONS OFTEN WITHOUT PEOPLE'S KNOWLEDGE.
THAT KIND OF SURVEILLANCE RISKS, CREATING FEAR AND SILENCE, ESPECIALLY AMONG THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY VULNERABLE.
THERE ARE ALSO REAL CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THIS DATA COULD BE ACCESSED OR SHARED.
EVEN INDIRECT PATHWAYS FOR INFORMATION TO REACH FEDERAL AGENCIES UNDERMINE THE SPIRIT OF SANCTUARY.
OUR COMMITMENT SHOULD BE TO CREATE CLEAR DISTANCE BETWEEN LOCAL SAFETY EFFORTS AND ANY SYSTEM THAT COULD EXPOSE IMMIGRANT RESIDENTS TO HARM.
IF WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT BEING A SANCTUARY CITY, WE MUST ENSURE THAT OUR POLICIES REFLECT THAT.
IN PRACTICE, THAT MEANS REJECTING TOOLS THAT ERODE TRUST AND INSTEAD INVESTING IN APPROACHES THAT STRENGTHEN COMMUNITY SAFETY, LIKE HOUSING STABILITY, MENTAL HEALTH RESOURCES, AND YOUTH PROGRAMS. IMMIGRANT SAFETY IS PUBLIC SAFETY AND CAMBRIDGE SHOULD ACT IN ALIGNMENT WITH SANCTUARY VALUES AND CHOOSE TRUST OVER SURVEILLANCE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS AMANDA R FOLLOWED BY CAROLYN MAGID, THEN MALIK BIN AMANDA.
[00:25:01]
MAG 71 REED STREET.I'M SPEAKING FOR OUR REVOLUTION CAMBRIDGE.
WE URGE THE CITY TO DISCONTINUE ITS PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOTSPOTTER PROGRAM.
THE RESOURCES DEDICATED TO SHOTSPOTTER WOULD BE BETTER INVESTED IN COMMUNITY-BASED VIOLENCE INTERVENTION, MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, AND THE KIND OF PUBLIC SAFETY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT BUILDS TRUST RATHER THAN ERODING IT.
THERE'S A LOT WRONG WITH SHOTSPOTTER FIRST, AS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN SAYING.
IT'S A MASS SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM FUNDED BY DHS AND OPERATING IN A SANCTUARY CITY.
THE DEVICES RECORD CONTINUOUSLY.
THEY'RE CAPABLE OF CAPTURING CONVERSATIONS.
THE CONTRACT PERMITS DATA SHARING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT BROADLY A TERM THAT INCLUDES THE VERY FEDERAL AGENCIES.
CAMBRIDGE'S SANCTUARY POLICIES ARE MEANT TO KEEP IT A DISTANCE IN THE CURRENT FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT CLIMATE.
THIS IS NOT A THEORETICAL CONCERN.
SECOND, AS PEOPLE HAVE SAID, IS CONCENTRATED IN BLACK, BROWN, AND IMMIGRANT NEIGHBORHOODS, THE PORT AND RIVERSIDE.
WITHOUT MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY CONSENT, IT WAS ADOPTED WITHOUT PUBLIC INPUT AND HAS OPERATED FOR OVER A DECADE WITH MINIMAL DEMOCRATIC OVERSIGHT.
CAMBRIDGE'S OWN SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE SHOULD COMPEL A HARDER LOOK AT WHETHER THIS TECHNOLOGY MEETS THE STANDARDS WE SET FOR OURSELVES.
AND FINALLY, IT DOESN'T EVEN WORK.
PEER REVIEWED RESEARCH, INCLUDING WORK BY NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY PROFESSOR ERIC PIZA, HAS FOUND NO COMPELLING EVIDENCE THAT SHOTS BUTTERED DEPLOYMENTS REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE OR MEANINGFULLY IMPROVED PUBLIC SAFETY OUTCOMES.
IN CAMBRIDGE, APPROXIMATELY 60% OF SHOT SPOTTER ACTIVATIONS OVER THE PAST DECADE WERE NOT CONFIRMED AS GUNFIRE, EVERY FALSE ALERT SENDS ARMED OFFICERS INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT SOMEONE IS ARMED AND DANGEROUS.
INSTEAD, IT CREATES RISK FOR ALL THESE REASONS, OUR REVOLUTION, CAMBRIDGE URGES THE COMMITTEE TO RECOMMEND DISCONTINUATION.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MALIK ABAN, FOLLOWED BY BROOKE FEINBERG, THEN FAYE FALI.
I'M TAKING TIME OFF WORK TO SPEAK WITH YOU ALL HERE TODAY.
I AM MUSLIM, I'M AFRICAN AMERICAN, AND I'M ACTIVE IN MY COMMUNITY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT SHOT, SPOTTER, FLOCK, AXON, AND ALL THE OTHER MEANS OF SURVEILLANCE ARE HERE FOR ME.
I ALSO NOTICE THAT OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT IS ALWAYS LISTENING WITH SHOT SPOTTER, YET THE THREE REPRESENTATIVES OF CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE FACED THE WALL THIS ENTIRE HEARING AND HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE SPEAKING TO THEM, THE RESIDENTS THEY'RE SWORN TO PROTECT.
ARE YOU LISTENING OR ARE YOU NOT? I ICE.
DHS, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
THIS IS MORE FODDER FOR THEM, MORE TOOLS FOR THEM TO USE TO CRUSH OUR COMMUNITY.
WE TALK A BIG GAME ABOUT SANCTUARY CITY, ABOUT LOVING OUR NEIGHBORS, DOCUMENTED, UNDOCUMENTED, BLACK, BROWN, WHITE, DOESN'T MATTER.
BUT WHAT ARE WE DOING IN OUR OWN BACKYARD? ARE WE LOOKING AT THE VESSELS, THE MACHINES, THE MICROPHONES, THE CAMERAS THAT MAKE THE OPPRESSION WORK? THE GEARS THAT LET THAT SYSTEM MOVE? ARE WE DISMANTLING THEM OR DO WE SIT FACING THE WALL EARS CLOSED, INATTENTIVE TO THE DEMANDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
I HAVE BEEN SURVEILLED MY WHOLE LIFE.
I HAVEN'T HAD A SINGLE CONVERSATION WITH ANOTHER PERSON WHERE A THIRD PARTY WASN'T ALWAYS LISTENING.
JUST A WEEK AGO I WAS IN HERE LISTENING TO CAROLINE HUNTER, AN ACTIVIST FAMOUS IN CAMBRIDGE FOR HER SPEECHES IN PUBLIC.
I KNOW TODAY SHE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SPEAK A WORD WITHOUT TRUMP KNOWING.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BROOKE FEINBERG, FOLLOWED BY FAYE FALI, THEN ROCHELLE A HI.
I LIVE ON COLUMBIA STREET AS A CAMBRIDGE RESIDENT AND INVOLVED COMMUNITY MEMBER.
I AM ANGERED THAT THIS INTRUSIVE SYSTEM THAT NONE OF MY ELECTED OFFICIALS AND NONE OF MY NEIGHBORS HAVE EVER VOTED ON.
I DO NOT CONSENT TO BEING UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE BY NATURE OF MOVING ABOUT CAMBRIDGE.
I DO NOT CONSENT FOR MY VULNERABLE NEIGHBORS IN OUR WELCOME COMMUNITY, SANCTUARY CITY TO BE AT RISK.
[00:30:01]
WHAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS MUST DO IS PASS LEGISLATION IMMEDIATELY THAT CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS MUST NEVER BE SURVEILLED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS FAYE FALI, FOLLOWED BY ROCHELLE A AND ALEX MATTHEWS.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I'VE LIVED IN CAMBRIDGE FOR 12 YEARS AND I'M SPEAKING AGAINST SHOT SPOTTER.
I'M ECHOING WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS SAID AGAINST SHOT SPOTTER.
IT'S INEFFECTIVE FROM CAMBRIDGE POLICE'S DEPARTMENT OWN DATA DEPARTMENT'S OWN DATA.
THEY SAY THAT SHOT SPOTTER HAS AN 82% FALSE POSITIVE RATE SHOT.
SPOTTER DATA CAN BE SHARED WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.
I DON'T TRUST ICE AND NEITHER SHOULD CAMBRIDGE AS A SANCTUARY CITY.
MICROPHONES ARE DISPROPORTIONATELY PLACED IN BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES IN CAMBRIDGE AND IT WAS NEVER APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL.
I WOULD MUCH BETTER USE OUR MONEY ELSEWHERE THAN FOR THE SURVEILLANCE OF OUR COMMUNITIES.
DO THE RIGHT THING AND STOP USING SHOTSPOTTER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ROCHELLE ANE FOLLOWED BY ALEX MATTHEWS.
YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? WE CAN THANK YOU.
UM, YEAH, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.
I'VE BEEN LIVING IN CAMBRIDGE FOR 15 YEARS.
I HAVE TWO CHILDREN WHO GO TO THE CAMBRIDGE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
UM, I CHOSE CAMBRIDGE BECAUSE I FELT IT WAS A, A COMMUNITY THAT ALIGNED WITH SO MANY OF MY VALUES.
MY CHI, MY CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS ARE DIVERSE AND I LOVE IT.
THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE OF COLOR, THERE'S SO MANY MUSLIMS, THERE'S SO MANY IMMIGRANTS.
UM, IT REALLY REFLECTS SOMETHING THAT IS TO BE CELEBRATED.
UM, YOU KNOW, DESPITE, I AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYONE SAID IN ALL THE TESTIMONY PRIOR TO MINE REGARDING THE, THE INEQUITY OF THE LOCATIONS.
I'M SURE THERE'S SOME IDEA THAT, OH, WELL WE CAN JUST, YOU KNOW, BUILD THEM OUT MORE, WHATEVER, WHAT HAVE YOU.
UM, OR, OR THE, THE RATE, THE, THE CORRECT, THE CORRECT RATE OR THE FALSE POSITIVE RATES, WHICH I IMAGINE THE ARGUMENT THERE IS THAT THIS IS TECHNOLOGY THAT IT'S EMERGING REGARDLESS.
THIS IS CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE THAT I AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER NEVER CONSENTED TO AND HAVE BEEN REALLY APPALLED SINCE LEARNING ABOUT IT FOR THE PAST YEAR.
I, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE BEING A MEMBER OF THIS COMMUNITY.
UM, UNDERSTANDING THAT MYSELF, THAT I, MY FAMILY AND MY COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE CONSTANTLY BEING SURVEILLED.
AND THAT THIS WAS DONE THROUGH A PROCESS THAT WAS, UM, NOT TRANSPARENT.
UM, AND NOT, AND CERTAINLY NOT DEMOCRATIC.
UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR POLICE, UM, THAT IS MORE BASED ON, ON COMMUNITY AND TRUST AND THIS DOESN'T REFLECT IT AT ALL.
UM, SO THAT REALLY IS CONCERNING TO ME.
UM, I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO ADD TO THIS.
I, I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THIS DOWN AND STOP THIS.
I DON'T THINK ECHOING WHAT I BELIEVE FAYE SAID A MOMENT AGO, NO ONE SHOULD BE SURVEILLED WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT.
THE FACT THAT YOU COULD HEAR WITHIN PEOPLE'S CLOSED QUARTERS, I MEAN, HOW IS CAMBRIDGE NOT AFRAID OF BEING SUED BY THAT? LIKE THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE PRETTY WORRISOME.
WE ARE AT SPEAKER NUMBER 18 OF 33 SPEAKERS TOTAL AND WE WILL GO TO ALEX MATTHEWS VIA ZOOM.
ALEX, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I AM THE CO-CHAIR OF DIGITAL FOURTH, WHICH IS A VOLUNTEER CIVIL LIBERTIES GROUP BASED IN CAMBRIDGE.
UM, I WANNA FOCUS ON SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER SPEAKERS.
WE ARE VERY OPPOSED TO SHOT SPOTTER.
UM, BUT I WANNA HIGHLIGHT THAT EVEN IF CITY COUNCILORS WERE WILLING TO ACCEPT ALL OF THE IMPACTS ON PRIVACY AND ON CIVIL LIBERTIES SHOT SPOTTER SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK.
WHAT DO I MEAN BY THAT? I MEAN THAT MEASURABLY, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ITS EFFECT ON GUN VIOLENCE, IT DOES NOT REDUCE GUN VIOLENCE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DATA JUST FOR CAMBRIDGE, HONESTLY, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH GUN VIOLENCE IN CAMBRIDGE TO EVEN TELL WHETHER IT WORKS HERE BY COMPARING SHOT SPOTTER ZONES TO NON SHOT SPOTTER ZONES.
[00:35:01]
BUT THERE HAVE BEEN NOW LARGE, INDEPENDENT LONGITUDINAL STUDIES ON SHOT SPOTTER TECHNOLOGY IN PARTICULAR.ONE OF THESE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF URBAN HEALTH.
IT COVERED 17 YEARS WORTH OF HOMICIDE DATA FROM 68 COUNTIES ACROSS THE US THAT ADOPTED SHOT SPOTTER.
IT COMPARED THEM TO COMPARABLE COUNTIES THAT DID NOT.
AND THEY FOUND NO EVIDENCE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY REDUCED FIREARM HOMICIDES.
IN OTHER WORDS, EVEN WITH THE WEALTH OF DATA PROVIDED IN THE CONTEXT OF BIGGER CITIES, SHOTSPOTTER CANNOT BE SHOWN TO HAVE ANY EFFECT AT ALL.
LOUIS, IT DECREASED RESIDENT CALLS TO REP REPORT SHOOTINGS BY 25%, WHICH IS A SETBACK FROM PUBLIC SAFETY.
'CAUSE CITIZEN CALLS WERE THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO LEAD THE INCIDENT REPORTS THAN WERE SHOT SPOTTER REPORTS.
SO I WANT YOU TO BEAR THAT IN MIND.
AND THIS IS WHY DAYTON AND CHICAGO AND LITTLE ROCK HAVE BEEN ABANDONING THIS TECHNOLOGY.
IT DOES US NO GOOD WHATSOEVER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS AISHA VIS, FOLLOWED BY MILES HERBERT, THEN LO LOIS MARKHAM.
UM, I HAVE LIVED IN CAMBRIDGE SINCE I WAS SEVEN YEARS OLD, AND, UM, I AM ACTIVE IN MY COMMUNITY.
UM, I, UM, I'M AN ORGANIZER, UM, AND COMMUNITY SUPPORTER OF MEN, WHICH IS A MUSLIM, UM, AND ALLIES, UM, ARTS AND COMMUNITY SOCIAL JUSTICE SPACE.
AND I'M HERE TODAY TO SPEAK AGAINST SHOTSPOTTER.
UM, THE BLACK RESPONSE, UM, HAS SHARED, UM, A STORY WITH THE COMMUNITY WHERE THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT ARRESTED A YOUNG MAN FALLING A SHOT, SPOTTER ALERT, UM, AND HE WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF USING A GUN, BUT YET SPENT TWO YEARS IN THE COURT SYSTEM FIGHTING THOSE GUN RELATED CHARGES STEMMING FROM THAT INCIDENT.
UM, THIS IS REALLY CONCERNING AND THIS SHOWS THAT THE ALERTS ARE NOT FULLY RELIABLE AND INACCURATE.
UM, SHOT SPOTTER IS A FORM OF CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE AND IT RAISES SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT MISUSE, OVERREACH, AND LOSS OF PRIVACY.
IN CAMBRIDGE, IT IS A FEDERALLY FUNDED NETWORK OF MICROPHONES THAT ARE ALWAYS LISTENING AND HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO CAPTURE EVERYDAY CONVERSATIONS.
SHOTS, BAR'S USE IS CREATING A DYNAMIC LIKE FROM 1984 IN WHICH PEOPLE ARE BEING MONITORED WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.
UM, SHOTSPOTTER IS DEVELOPED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC TRADED FOR-PROFIT COMPANY, AND THIS SHOWS THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS EFFECTIVELY OUTSOURCED THE MONITORING OF PRIVATE CITIZENS TO ACOMP, WHOSE PRIMARY OBLIGATION IS TO GENERATE PROFIT FOR SHAREHOLDERS, NOT TO ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY.
THIS IS VERY DYSTOPIAN AND CREATES A DYSTOPIAN ENVIRONMENT IN THE CITY THAT WE LOVE, IN THE CITY THAT WE LOVINGLY CALL THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CAMBRIDGE.
AND IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE IT BEING THAT, UM, WE HAVE TO DISMANTLE SHOT SPOTTER IMMEDIATELY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MILES, HERBERT MILES MOUSE HAS NOT JOINED.
WE'LL GO TO LOIS MARKHAM, FOLLOWED BY GLENNA WYMAN, THEN JACOB BROWN.
LOIS, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO, MY NAME IS LOIS MARKHAM.
I'M SPEAKING TODAY TO REGISTER MY STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE SHOTSPOTTER SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM CURRENTLY DEPLOYED IN CERTAIN NEIGHBORHOODS OF CAMBRIDGE.
OTHERS WITH A DEEPER KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESEARCH HAVE SPOKEN OR WILL SPEAK TO SHOTSPOTTER'S INEFFECTIVENESS AND THE RACISM BEHIND ITS DEPLOYMENT, PRIMARILY IN BLACK AND BROWN COMMUNITIES.
I SPEAK AS AN ORDINARY CITIZEN, AND MY QUESTION IS, WHO ARE WE AS A COMMUNITY? WHAT ARE OUR VALUES? WHAT DOES IT SAY ABOUT US THAT WE HAVE ACCEPTED MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, PARENT ORGANIZATION OF THE INFAMOUS ICE, TO PAY A PRIVATE CORPORATION TO SPY ON CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS.
ALL OF THAT WITHOUT EVEN HAVING LOCAL CONTROL OF THE DATA GENERATED BY THIS INEFFECTIVE SYSTEM, NO MATTER WHO PAYS FOR IT.
SHOTSPOTTER DOES NOT MAKE CAMBRIDGE A SAFER COMMUNITY FOR ANYONE.
IT MAKES CAMBRIDGE A MORE OPPRESSIVE PLACE TO LIVE FOR ALL OF US, BUT PARTICULARLY FOR ITS BLACK AND BROWN RESIDENTS WHO ARE ALREADY TARGETED BY RACISM AND SO MANY OTHER
[00:40:01]
ASPECTS OF THEIR LIVES.IS THIS WHAT WE WANT THE CITY TO WHOM WE PLAY TAXES TO BE DOING? I DON'T, AND I KNOW A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE WHO AGREE WITH ME.
I URGE THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO ONE END.
CAMBRIDGE'S PARTICIPATION IN THE SHOTS SPOTTER PROGRAM.
TWO AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT, REMOVE ALL SHOTS.
SPOTTER MICROPHONES FROM THE CITY.
THREE, REQUIRE A FULL CITY COUNCIL, VOTE FOR ANY FUTURE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY REGARDLESS OF WHAT ITS FUNDING SOURCES ARE.
AND FOUR, INVEST IN COMMUNITY-LED EVIDENCE-BASED APPROACHES TO PUBLIC SAFETY RATHER THAN UNPROVEN SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS. THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS GLENNA WYMAN GLENNA, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
SAME THING HAPPENED YESTERDAY.
UM, I FIRST WANTED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING IN THE PACKET PRODUCED BY THE, UH, CAMBRIDGE PD, UM, EXPLAINING ALL THE SURVEILLANCE, UH, FRIGHTENING ARRAY OF
UM, BUT THE ONE, UH, I'M, I'M FOCUSED ON IS SECTION 17 ENTITLED CITY OF CAMBRIDGE ANNUAL.
WELL, ANYHOW, IT'S THE DIVISION HAVING TO DO WITH CIS DAYS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND CYBER.
AND IF YOU WOULD SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT SECTION, UH, THERE'S THE, UM, REQUISITE QUESTION.
ARE ANY COMMUNITIES DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPAIRED BY SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY? AND IT, YOU KNOW, I'LL SKIP OVER IT'S ANSWER ON GPS AND CELL PHONES, ET CETERA.
UH, FOR SHOT SPOTTER, IT'S AN OUTRIGHT LIE.
IT'S JUST AN OUTRIGHT LIE THAT THERE'S NO WAY THEY DON'T KNOW THIS.
IT SAYS NOT KNOWN OR NONE KNOWN.
HUMAN VOICES WILL NEVER TRIGGER A SENSOR BECAUSE THEY DO NOT PRODUCE AN INSTANTANEOUS SHARP SOUND AND ARE NOT LOUD ENOUGH TO BE PICKED UP BY THREE OR MORE SENSORS.
UH, WE KNOW HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS THERE WAS A CASE THAT GOT, UH, I BELIEVE THROWN OUTTA COURT INVOLVING, UH, YOU KNOW, A VOICE HEARD RIGHT BEFORE AN ALLEGED, UH, GUNFIRE.
AND, UH, OR MAYBE IT DIDN'T GET THROWN OUT, BUT THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE WAS THROWN OUT.
UM, AND IT WAS A VOICE THAT HAD BEEN PICKED UP BY THE EQUIPMENT.
UH, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER CASES, UH, AND, AND, UH, EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT IN FACT THE VOICES ARE PICKED UP.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JACOB BROWN, FOLLOWED BY VIRGINIA FISHER.
THEN ANDREW KIM JACOB, JACOB IS NOT HERE.
WE'RE GONNA GO TO VIRGINIA FISHER, VIRGINIA, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.
I AM HERE AS IS EVERYONE ELSE WHO'S SPOKEN TO STRONGLY ENCOURAGED THIS COMMITTEE AND COUNCIL TO DISCONTINUE THE SHOTSPOTTER PROGRAM.
I HAVE BEEN SHOCKED AND APPALLED TO LEARN THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY WAS INSTALLED IN MY COMMUNITY WITHOUT DEMOCRATIC OVERSIGHT, THAT IT WAS PAID FOR BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.
WE REMIND EVERYONE THIS IS AN AGENCY WITH WEEKLY QUOTAS TO DEPORT MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
AND THAT THE DATA FROM THIS SYSTEM IS AVAILABLE IN THE BRICK, THE BOSTON REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER, SUCH AS A FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE NETWORK THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN FOUND TO U BE USED TO TARGET MUSLIM COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY AS PART OF THE WAR ON TERROR.
AND, UH, THERE IS NO RECOURSE ONCE THIS INFORMATION GETS INTO THAT SYSTEM.
SO I JUST WANNA URGE THE COUNCIL TO STAND UP FOR OUR VALUES AS A SANCTUARY CITY PROTECTING RESIDENTS FROM THIS DANGEROUS TECHNOLOGY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANDREW KIM, FOLLOWED BY JAY SHARMA, THEN LEE FERRIS.
I LIVE AT DUDLEY STREET AND I'M WITH THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA.
FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK COUNSELOR ZUBIE AND THE COMMITTEE FOR BEING OPEN TO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THE SHOP SPOTTER SYSTEM.
I BELIEVE THAT THE SYSTEM IS A VAST SURVEILLANCE OVERREACH THAT GOES AGAINST THE VALUES OF CAMBRIDGE ON MULTIPLE LEVELS.
FIRST, THIS IS A SYSTEM THAT IS ALWAYS
[00:45:01]
LISTENING 24 7, INCLUDING THE CONVERSATIONS AT A NORMAL VOLUME BY DESIGN.IT IS ALSO DESIGNED TO BE CAPABLE OF LISTENING THROUGH WALLS.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO USE CONVERSATIONAL RECORDINGS FROM THE SYSTEM IN COURT.
THAT'S, THIS INDICATES TO ME THAT SHOT SPOTTER IS THE SYSTEM INTENDED TO SPY ON CAMBRIDGE, TO LISTEN INTO OUR PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS AND RECORD THEM FOR LATER USE.
EVEN IF THIS IS NOT HOW THE SYSTEM IS CURRENTLY USED, IT CLEARLY HAS THE CAPABILITY TO BE USED THIS WAY.
I AM NOT ALONE WHEN I SAY THAT.
I FIND THIS SY TO BE A SYSTEM WHOSE DESIGN GOES AGAINST CAMBRIDGE'S VALUES AS A CITY SECOND SHOT SPOTTER IS AFFECTED AND, AND ACCORDING TO THE SH CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S OWN DATA HAS AN 82% FALSE ALARM RATE.
THIS SYSTEM CAUSES THE DESTABILIZATION AND PANIC OF A POLICE RESPONSE TO A VIOLENT ACT WITH NO REAL VIOLENCE TO RESPOND TO SIGNIFICANTLY MORE OFTEN THAN IT ACTUALLY DOES IDENTIFY VIOLENT ACTS.
IT THEREFORE EXPENDS DEPARTMENT RESOURCES AND DEGRADES PUBLIC TRUST FOR UNNECESSARY ALERTS.
SO NOT ONLY IS IT AGAINST OUR VALUES, IT IS AN INEFFECTIVE SYSTEM.
THIRD, AS MANY HAVE STATED, SHOT SPOTTER IS FUNDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND HAS BEEN USED IN CONCERT WITH FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE SYSTEM'S HISTORY.
AND IT ALLOWS ITES TO ASK ACCESS ITS DATA.
IT IS CLEARLY ALIGNED WITH FEDERAL INTERESTS THAT THE CITY IS EXPRESSLY OPPOSED TO AS A SANCTUARY CITY.
FOURTH, THIS WAS NOT FORMALLY, UM, APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
THE PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO SPEAK AND ACT ON THIS SYSTEM THROUGH OUR ELECTIVE COUNCIL WAS CIRCUMVENTED.
THE SYSTEM WAS ENABLED AND DEPLOYED UNDEMOCRATICALLY WITHOUT THE DUE PROCESS OR SCRUTINY THAT SHOULD ACCOMP ACCOMPANY THE ACCEPTANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF SUCH A MAJOR SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM.
FINALLY, THE SYSTEM WAS DEPLOYED RACISTLY, THE AREAS WHERE IT WAS DEPLOYED, LINE UP WITH AREAS OF HISTORIC REDLINING IN THE CITY.
I THINK THE, UH, ACTION ON THIS IS CLEAR.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JAY SHARMA.
JAY, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HI, YES, UH, MY NAME IS JAY SHARMA.
UM, I WAS FORMALLY A SOFTWARE ENGINEER FOR A BIG TECH COMPANY AND I'M NOW A HARVARD LAW SCHOOL STUDENT AND I LIVE IN INMAN SQUARE.
UM, I WANTED TO STATE MY STRONGEST TASTE, UH, FOR THE SHOT SPOTTER PROGRAM.
UH, SHOTSPOTTER PLAINLY HURTS OUR COMMUNITIES.
UM, FIRST I THINK PEOPLE UNDERESTIMATE HOW MUCH, UH, TECH COMPANIES COLLECT DATA.
UM, HAVING WORKED FOR A BIG TECH COMPANY, IT'S WAY MORE THAN YOU EXPECT, AND THEY KEEP IT AND THEY VIOLATE ALL SORTS OF POLICIES ALL THE TIME.
UM, NEXT I WANNA TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OF THE PSYCHIC OR PSYCHOLOGICAL DAMAGE, UM, THAT OCCURS WITH THESE MASS SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS. UM, IN DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH BY, UH, MICHEL FUKO, UH, HIS 1975, UH, TREATISE SORT OF DESCRIBES A PANOPTICON, WHICH IS A STYLE OF JAIL WHERE ONE GUARD IS POSTED IN THE CENTER OF THE JAIL IN A WATCHTOWER, AND WHERE ALL THE PRISONERS SURROUND THAT TOWER.
UM, THIS MAKES THE PRISONERS FEEL CONSTANTLY SUR SURVEILLED AND THEY CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR BECAUSE OF THAT PERCEIVED SURVEILLANCE.
HE SORT OF EXTRAPOLATES THIS IDEA, UM, TO THE MODERN SURVEILLANCE STATE AND BASICALLY TALKS ABOUT HOW TECHNOLOGY THAT MAKES PEOPLE FEEL SURVEILLED CAN NEGATIVELY IMPACT THEIR BEHAVIOR.
UM, AND THIS CAN REDUCE THE FREEDOM AND SUPPRESS, UM, FREEDOM IN PEOPLE'S LIVES.
UH, AND LASTLY, I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT HOW FALSE TRIALS CAN REALLY RUIN PEOPLE'S LIVES.
UH, HAVING READ MANY, MANY CRIMINAL LAW CASES, UH, IF SOMEONE IS FALSELY ACCUSED OF SOMETHING, EVEN IF THEY EVENTUALLY ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY DO GET OFF AND ARE ABLE TO PROVE THEIR CASE, UH, THEY CAN LOSE THEIR JOB, THEY CAN LOSE THEIR FAMILY, UM, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
AND SO FOR ALL OF THESE REASONS, I THINK CAMBRIDGE SHOULD, UH, STOP USING SHOP SPOTTER OR SHOT SPOTTER IMMEDIATELY.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS LEE FERRIS.
GO AHEAD, LEE, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE YOURSELF.
UM, I'LL START BY SAYING THAT I'M SPEAKING FOR THE CAMBRIDGE RESIDENCE ALLIANCE AS THE PRESIDENT OF THAT ORGANIZATION, WHICH HAS OVER A THOUSAND SUPPORTERS THROUGHOUT CAMBRIDGE.
AND, UM, THE RESIDENCE ALLIANCE HAS, UH, OPPOSED THE K THE SHOT SPOTTER PROGRAM, UH, SINCE WE FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT.
UM, AND WE, WE THINK THAT IT'S TIME FOR IT TO STOP.
UM, AS YOU HEARD, MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBER, SHELLY RE SAY, UM, WE THINK THAT, UH, ALL THE MICROPHONES SHOULD BE DISMANTLED AND REMOVED, AND WE ASK THAT THE CITY, UM, INSTEAD
[00:50:01]
INVESTED IN COMMUNITY-LED, UH, PUBLIC SAFETY.AND IN THE FUTURE, WE WANT THE COUNCIL TO VOTE ON ALL SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY, EVEN IF THERE IS NO COST TO THE CITY.
BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A DIRECT CONTRACT WITH SHOTSPOTTER AND HAS NEVER VOTED TO APPROVE IT, THE CITY AND THE COUNCIL HAVE NO OVERSIGHT.
SO TO US IT SEEMS THAT VIOLATES THE SPIRIT OF THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE, WHICH WE WERE STRONG SUPPORTERS OF.
WE'RE CONCERNED THAT THE DATA CAN AND WILL BE SHARED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT OUTSIDE OF CAMBRIDGE, POSSIBLY EVEN WITH ICE.
THIS MEANS THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING SHOTS.
SPOTTER MEANS THAT WE'RE NOT ALIGNED WITH OUR WELCOMING COMMUNITY ORDINANCE.
WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED THAT IN CAMBRIDGE MOST ALERTS ARE NOT GUNFIRE.
SO POLICE RESOURCES ARE INEFFECTIVELY USED, AND WE KNOW THAT SHOT SPOTTER IS DEPLOYED MOSTLY IN LOWER INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS OF COLOR, LIKE THE PORT WHERE I LIVE IN RIVERSIDE.
SO THIS SURVEILLANCE IS UNEQUAL AND RESULTS IN MORE POLICE INTERACTION.
THERE WE URGE YOU TO VOTE TO END SHAW'S SPOTTER.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS BTY TI FOLLOWED BY ANNIE BUTLER.
THEN CATHERINE SYLVESTRI BTI, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
UM, I AM A LONG, I WAS A LONG TIME RESIDENT OF CAMBRIDGE.
I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE CAMBRIDGE HOUSING JUSTICE COALITION.
UH, I'M JUST, UH, JOINING TO SUPPORT, UM, EVERYBODY ELSE WHO HAS SPOKEN IN FAVOR OF DISMANTLING SHOT SPOTTER.
UM, IT IS A PROGRAM THAT NOBODY IN THE CITY, UH, CHOSE FOR A PROGRAM WITH ZERO, UM, PREVIOUS COMMUNICATION OR INVOLVEMENT, UM, FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH IT.
UM, AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE SAID, UM, IT IS, UM, SUPPORTING SURVEILLANCE, UM, BEYOND, UH, THE CAMBRIDGE AREA.
OUR DATA IS IS BEING TAKEN, UM, AND STORED IN BOSTON AND, UH, BEING GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS MAKING USE OF IT POTENTIALLY, UM, TO, UM, ENFORCE, UH, IMMIGRATION.
UM, AND, UM, I WANNA SUPPORT, UM, ALL THE MEMBERS, UM, OF, UM, THIS COMMITTEE INCLUDING, UH, COUNCILLOR ZUBI AS WELL AS, UH, THE WORK THAT THE BLACK RESPONSE HAS DONE IN, UM, MAKING THIS ISSUE, UM, SO VISIBLE AND SO CLEAR.
AND I THINK THAT, UM, THE NEXT STEPS ARE REALLY OBVIOUS.
UH, WE NEED TO DISMANTLE SHOT SPOTTER.
WE NEED TO, UM, GET RID OF ALL THESE LISTENING DEVICES AND WE NEED TO, UH, PREVENT SIMILAR SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED IN CAMBRIDGE IN THE FUTURE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS ANNIE BUTLER.
I LIVE AT 32 ANDREW STREET IN CAMBRIDGE.
I'M A HOMEOWNER, SO I PAY TAXES.
UM, AND I HAVE JUST A FEW THINGS TO SAY.
UM, I KNOW WE TALK ABOUT WHERE THE SHOT SPOTTERS ARE, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF THERE'S ANY ON WOODBRIDGE STREET, IF THERE'S ANY UP IN WEST CAMBRIDGE, IF THERE'S ANY AT THE OTHER END OF SYDNEY STREET, IF THERE'S ANY IN CERTAIN PARTS OF CAMBRIDGE PORT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU ALL LIVE AND YOUR INFORMATION IS PUBLIC.
THAT'S WHERE THE CITY COUNCIL LIVES THAT I WOULD LIKE A REPORT ON THAT.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE THERE.
AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY, UM, THE SOUND THINKING SAYS THAT THEY ONLY KEEP IT FOR 72 HOURS, BUT ACTUALLY IF YOU READ THEIR OWN SELF EXPLANATION, THEY CAN KEEP IT AS LONG AS THEY WANT AND THEY HAVE TO GIVE IT OVER TO THE FEDS.
AND I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE FACE RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY AND NOBODY THOUGHT IT WAS POSSIBLE, AND NOW THEY CAN SPOT A FACE IN A CROWD OF 50,000 PEOPLE IF THEY WANT TO.
SO NOW THEY'RE LISTENING 24 7 AND SOON TECHNOLOGY WILL BE ABLE TO ZERO IN ON A PARTICULAR VOICE.
AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR TO ME.
AND THE LAST THING I HAVE TO SAY IS, UM, I DON'T REALLY CARE WHETHER EVERYBODY DEMOCRATICALLY DECIDES TO HAVE SHOT SPOTTER IN THIS COMMUNITY.
I DON'T GIVE A CARE ABOUT THAT.
THE POINT IS, SHOT SPOTTER IS RACIST AND IT'S NOT JUSTICE.
AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN CAMBRIDGE.
BUT I CAME TO CAMBRIDGE BECAUSE THIS IS A PLACE THAT I WANT TO LIVE.
I LIKE ALL THE DIFFERENT RELIGIONS.
I LIKE THAT MY SON GOT TO GO TO SCHOOL WITH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF PEOPLE WHO LOOK LIKE HIM AND WHO DON'T LOOK LIKE HIM.
[00:55:01]
AND IT'S NOT, AND I'M ALSO, I WAS A TEACHER ALSO AND IT'S NOT FAIR.OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS CATHERINE SYLVESTRI AND OUR FINAL SPEAKER WILL BE JOCELYN ISH.
CATHERINE, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HI, MY NAME IS CATHERINE SYLVESTER.
I LIVE ON TWO FACULTY NORFOLK STREET.
AS OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED, THIS IS AN AREA WITH A VERY HIGH DENSITY OF SHOT SPOTTER.
TO ME, INEQUITY IS NOT THE ONLY ISSUE.
I DON'T WANT THE SHOT SPOTTER ANYWHERE IN THIS CITY.
BEING CONSTANTLY SVI SURVEILLED AND HAVING MY CON CONVERSATIONS POTENTIALLY RECORDED DOES NOT MAKE ME FEEL SAFER AS A RESIDENT.
OVER SURVEILLANCE IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN MANY WAYS IN OUR LIVES, AND IT KEEPS GETTING WORSE.
OUR RIGHT TO PRIVACY IS BEING ERODED, BUT THIS IS NOT INEVITABLE.
THIS IS A SPECIFICALLY A SHOTS SPOTTED.
THIS IS A CHOICE THAT WAS MADE AND IT IS A CHOICE THAT CAN BE REVERSED AS WE HAVE, AS WE HAVE HEARD AND AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE DATA SHOT SPOTTER IS NOT EFFECTIVE.
IT HAS A LOT OF FALSE ALARMS THAT IS A WASTE OF RESOURCES THERE.
AND THE POLICE IN THEIR, THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE POINTED OUT THAT THE BENEFIT THEY SEE IS THAT IT COULD INCREASE THEIR RESPONSE TIME.
MY ANSWER TO THAT IS WE NEED TO FIND OTHER WAYS TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO CALL IN GUNSHOT INCIDENT.
WE NEED TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL SAFE CALLING IN GUNSHOT INCIDENTS.
WHY AREN'T THEY CALLING 'EM IN? IS IT BECAUSE THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DOES NOT HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH PEOPLE IN THESE COMMUNITIES? WE WENT THROUGH THE, THIS ISSUE OF SURVEILLANCE ALREADY SO RECENTLY WITH THE APRS, WHICH CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT AGGRESSIVELY PUSHED FOR AS WELL.
WE SHOULD NOT BE CAUGHT ON THE BACK FOOT WITH THIS AGAIN.
IT SHOULD NOT BE THAT WE HA WE FIND OUT OUR DATA ARE COMPROMISED AND THEN WE HAVE TO BACKTRACK ON THIS.
THE TIME TO REVERSE THIS IS NOW.
WE SHOULD NOT TRUST THE SHOP BOTTER COMPANY, UH, WHOSE ENTIRE BUSINESS IS SURVEILLANCE TO BE RESPONSIBLE WITH OUR DATA OR BE BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT HOW OUR DATA IS USED.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HAVING THIS HEARING.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS JOCELYN SORA.
I LIVE AT 4 6 5 PUTNAM AVENUE IN CAMBRIDGE PORT.
AND I'M ALSO SPEAKING TODAY AGAINST THE USE OF SPOT, UM, SPOT SHOTTER IN OUR COMMUNITY.
UM, TWO WEEKENDS AGO I SPENT PART OF MY AFTERNOON, UM, TALKING TO NEIGHBORS IN CAMBRIDGE PORT AND, UM, MANY OF THEM WERE IMMIGRANTS AND MOST HAD NEVER HEARD OF SPOT SHOTTER AND WERE COMPLETELY UNAWARE THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY WAS BEING DEPLOYED IN OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AROUND THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IS REALLY FRIGHTENING AND UNACCEPTABLE TO ME.
UM, IN GENERAL, THE INCREASING ENCROACHING AMOUNT OF SURVEILLANCE, UM, TECHNOLOGY IS, UM, SHOULD HONESTLY BE FRIGHTENING TO ALL OF US.
THE FACT THAT THIS COMPANY THAT OPERATES SPOT SHOT OR SOUND THINKING OWNS THE DATA AND REALLY HAS THE RIGHT THEN TO SELL OR SHARE IT TO ANYONE.
AND WE DON'T HAVE A SAY OVER THAT.
UM, I ALSO WANNA JUST NOTE THAT I'M THE LAST SPEAKER AND ALL 32 COMMENTS HAVE BEEN AGAINST, UM, SPOT SHOTTER AND THIS IS DURING THE WORKDAY.
AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO PROBABLY COULDN'T TAKE OFF WORK OR MAYBE HAVE CARETAKING DUTIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND SO IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS A PRETTY OVERWHELMING THEME THAT, UM, THAT CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS, AT LEAST INCLUDING MYSELF, UM, ARE AGAINST SPOT SHOTTER.
SO I WANT TO REITERATE, UM, THAT, UM, I REQUEST THE CITY ENDS ITS PARTICIPATION WITH SPOT SHOTTER AND REMOVES THE MICROPHONES, UM, PLANTED AROUND THE CITY IMMEDIATELY, AND THAT IN THE FUTURE ALL CONSIDERATIONS OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY SHOULD REQUIRE A CITY COUNCIL VOTE EVEN IF THE FUNDING IS COMING FROM AN EXTERNAL ENTITY.
THAT CONCLUDES THE LIST OF THOSE WHO ARE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
THANK YOU TO THE SPEAKERS AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO SHARE FURTHER COMMENTS, PLEASE EMAIL CITY COUNCIL@CAMBRIDGEMA.GOV
[01:00:02]
AND THE CITY CLERK.SIR, YOUR COMMENT IS RECORDED.
AS WE MOVE INTO THE SPEAKERS, I WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CONVERSATIONS AROUND SHOTSPOTTER HAVE BEEN ONGOING FOR YEARS.
IN FACT, PART OF THE CONVERSATION AROUND SHOTSPOTTER CAME FROM AROUND 2010 WHEN IT APPEARS THAT THE RESPECTIVE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL EXPRESSED INTEREST.
THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE CURRENT COUNCIL TODAY HOLDS THAT SAME PERSPECTIVE.
THAT'S PART OF WHY WE'RE HERE.
PART OF TODAY'S DISCUSSION IS TO HELP US UNDERSTAND NEW INFORMATION LIKE ON THE CONTRACT, WHICH WE NOW HAVE ACCESS TO.
SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO PROFESSOR PISTON AND THEN WE'LL DO THE PRESENTATION FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THEN COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
SORRY, I ACTUALLY THOUGHT IT WAS MASON.
DO I STEPHANIE THEN I THOUGHT IT WAS ME.
SO THANK YOU COUNCILOR ZUBIE FOR CALLING AND SHARING THIS IMPORTANT HEARING ON SHOTSPOTTER, UH, AND FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE TODAY.
AND THANK YOU TO THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMITTEE, UH, FOR BEING HERE TODAY.
UM, I WANNA BEGIN BY EMPHASIZING THAT, SORRY, STEPHANIE, SORRY TO INTERRUPT.
CAN YOU JUST PULL THE MIC A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOU? VERY GOOD, THANK YOU.
UM, I WANNA EMPHASIZE THAT MY PRESENTATION IS VERY MUCH A CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC COMMENT.
I AM A 30 PLUS YEAR RESIDENT OF CAMBRIDGE.
UM,
UH, A KEY QUESTION RAISED DURING LAST YEAR'S HEARING ON DURING THE SECOND 2025, UM, WAS WHAT DO RESIDENTS IN IN IMPACTED COMMUNITIES ACTUALLY THINK ABOUT SHOT SPOTTER MICROPHONES? SO OVER THE PAST YEAR, AS YOU MIGHT HAVE HEARD THE BLACK RESPONSE, UM, AS A MEMBER OF THE STOP SHOT SPOTTER COALITION VILLE, WHICH INCLUDES SOMERVILLE, UM, HAVE WORKED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BY HOLDING EIGHT COMMUNITY EDUCATION WORKSHOPS IN CONDUCTING SIX DOOR-TO-DOOR CANVAS SESSIONS, AND FOCUSING SPECIFICALLY IN THE AREAS WITH THE HIGHEST, UM, PROPORTION OF SHOTS MICROPHONES.
SO THE PORT, AND PARTICULARLY IN NEWTOWN COURT IN WASHINGTON ELMS WHERE I GREW UP AND LIVED FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
AND I SHOULD ALSO ADD THAT I'M AN IMMIGRANT AND I'M VISIBLY RACIALIZED AS AN AFRICAN DESCENDED PERSON.
SO I FEEL LIKE I AM REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT TODAY.
UM, SO MUCH OF WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SHARE IS ACTUALLY GROUNDED IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD WITH THOSE RESIDENTS.
UM, I HAD SLIDES, I JUST, I JUST NOW READ THAT
UM, WHAT WAS THE TITLE OF THOSE SLIDES? GOOD QUESTION.
IS IT THE, IT'S THE ONE ON TION PRESENTATION.
IT'S COMMUNITY SENTIMENT ON SHOTSPOTTER.
AND YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE SECOND SLIDE.
UM, SO THREE OF OUR MAIN POINTS RESONATED STRONGLY WITH RESIDENTS.
THE FIRST WAS THAT MANY PEOPLE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THE MICROPHONES WERE ALWAYS ON AND CONTINUOUSLY LISTENING.
SO THERE WAS WIDESPREAD BELIEF THAT THE MICROPHONES ONLY ACTIVATED, MEANING POWERED ON ONCE THE SOUND OF A GUNSHOT WAS DETECTED.
SECOND, WHEN WE REFERENCED COMMONWEALTH V DENISON, UH, UH, THE SHOT SPOTTER INVOLVED CASE HERE IN MASSACHUSETTS IN BEDFORD, I THINK, UH, WE EXPLAINED THAT SHOTS SPOTTER CAN CAPTURE STREET LEVEL CONVERSATIONS FROM UP TO 50 FEET AWAY, INCLUDING THROUGH BUILDINGS.
UM, I WANNA CALL UP, UH, PROFESSOR MARS PRESENTATION FROM LAST JUNE WHERE HE EXPLAINED THAT PROCESS AS A, AN ACOUSTIC ENGINEER PROFESSOR.
SO PEOPLE FELT REALLY CONCERNED.
UM, THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, UH, REGARDING THIS.
SO AGAIN, UH, THIS IS BECAUSE MANY RESIDENTS HAD ASSUMED THAT MICROPHONES WERE COMPLETELY DORMANT AND ONLY CAPABLE OF DETECTING GUNSHOTS, NOT RECORDING NEARBY CONVERSATIONS.
AND FINALLY, RESIDENTS EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE LACK OF DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN CAMBRIDGE AND THE ABSENCE OF A MEANINGFUL OVERSIGHT OF THIS MICROPHONE SYSTEM.
[01:05:07]
I LOST THE PAGE OF MY PRESENTATION.UM, I JUST WANNA CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MAP HERE.
UH, BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER ABOUT THE MAP, I'M GONNA PASS AROUND A PAGE OF MARCH, 2026 BRIDGE STATS REPORT, WHICH IS THIS REPORT HERE.
UM, IT'S A MONTHLY REPORT THAT'S PRODUCED BY THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
UM, AND ON THE PAGE THAT I'M PASSING AROUND, UM, IT'S PART OF THE MONTHLY REPORT THEY IDENTIFY.
DO YOU HAVE MORE OF THESE? I ONLY HAVE THE ONE ACTUALLY, CAN I HAVE IT BACK? THANKS.
UM, I CAN SEND THE LINK TO FOLKS IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.
UM, THIS IS A PAGE THAT'S IN EVERY MONTH'S, UM, BRIDGE TAX REPORT.
AND IN IT YOU CAN SEE THAT, UM, THERE'S A MAP OF THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND IT IDENTIFIES THE LOCATION OF, UH, A, OF A GUNSHOT THAT TOOK PLACE ON JANUARY 24TH.
SO ALL OF THE DATA THAT'S IN THAT BOX POPULATES, UH, A SPREADSHEET THAT WE CREATE FROM THE DATA THAT'S PUBLICLY AVAILABLE FROM THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AND WE USE THE DATA FROM THAT SPREADSHEET, UM, TO MAKE A VISUALIZATION.
AND THIS IS A SCREENSHOT OF THE DASHBOARD THAT WE'VE PRODUCED FROM THE DATA FROM THIS REPORT.
SO ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT'S PRESENTED HERE AND ON OUR FREELY AVAILABLE DASHBOARD COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
SORRY, I JUST HAVE TO FIND MY NOTES.
I, SO COMMUNITIES WERE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE HIGH FALSE POSITIVE RATES REPORTED FROM PREVIOUS STUDIES, OBVIOUSLY FROM BOSTON, NEW YORK, CHICAGO, ST.
UM, BUT THOSE ONES IN PARTICULAR.
SO USING THE DATA FROM THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORTS, UM, ALONG WITH THE LEAK SHOCK PUTTER MICROPHONE LOCATIONS, UM, WE DEVELOPED THIS FREE AND PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DASHBOARD AND WE ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
I'LL SEND THE LINK AFTER IF THAT'S OKAY.
UM, SO ON THE MAP, I HOPE YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE THESE TINY LITTLE BLUE DOTS.
THOSE BLUE DOTS ARE ACTUALLY THE LOCATIONS OF, UM, THE MICROPHONES IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE SHOTS SPOT OR MICROPHONES IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
UM, THE GREEN DOTS YOU SEE HERE ARE ACTUALLY CONFIRMED GUN SH GUN ACTIVITIES.
AGAIN, FROM THE MONTHLY REPORTS FROM THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
AND THE RED DOTS, UM, OH, EXCUSE ME.
THE GREEN DOTS ARE CONFIRMED GUN ACTIVITIES WITH NO CORRESPONDING SHOT SPOTTER ALERT AND THE RED DOTS ARE CONFIRMED GUN ACTIVITIES WITH A CORRESPONDING SHOT SPOTTER ALERT.
SO, BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE NO BLUE DOTS, UM, ON THE WESTERN NORTHERN SIDE OF THE CITY, THERE ARE ONLY GREEN DOTS THERE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE MICROPHONES ARE CLUSTERED, UH, IN
AND SO, UH, THE RED DOTS, UH, ARE CLUSTERED THERE.
BUT YOU CAN ALSO SEE THERE ARE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF GREEN DOTS IN THOSE LOCATIONS TOO.
AND THOSE GREEN DOTS, AGAIN, ARE CONFIRMED GUN ACTIVITIES BY THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH NO CORRESPONDING SHOT SPOTTER ALERT, UH, COMMUNITY MEMBERS WERE SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT MICROPHONES ARE CONCENTRATED ONLY IN THE PORT RIVERSIDE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, THEY WERE ALSO CONCERNED TO SEE THESE GREEN DOTS APPEARING EVEN IN THE AREAS WITH MICROPHONES INDICATING CONFIRMED GUN GUN ACTIVITIES THAT DID NOT TRIGGER A SHOT SPOT ALERT.
SO MANY BEGAN TO QUESTION THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SYSTEM AS A RESULT.
UM, I'LL RETURN TO THIS POINT LATER IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT IN A RECENT SURVEY THAT WE, UM, FACILITATED, WE FOUND NINE OUT OF 10 RESPONDENTS EXPRESSED SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY VIOLATIONS, RACIAL PROFILING, AND POTENTIAL COLLABORATION WITH ICE.
OUR ONLINE SURVEY WAS PRIMARILY SHARED WITH COMMUNITY MEMBERS FOLLOWING OUR SHOTS, PUTTER EDUCATION EVENTS.
UM, AND ACROSS THESE EVENTS, THERE WERE MORE THAN A HUNDRED RESIDENTS, UM, WHO ATTENDED.
UH, BUT AGAIN, THE, THE SURVEYS WERE COMPLETELY OPTIONAL,
SO, UM, WE HAVE A VERY SMALL SAMPLE SIZE OF PEOPLE WHO CHOSE TO, UM, COMPLETE THE, THE SURVEYS.
SO WE HAVE 10 RESPONDENTS OF THE VIRTUAL SURVEYS, AND OF THOSE RESPONDENTS, SIX OF THE 10 IDENTIFIED AS BLACK AFRICAN DESCENDED, SIX OUT OF 10, UM, WERE AFFORDABLE HOUSING RESIDENTS.
SO WHEN WE ASKED ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE IN CAMBRIDGE, ONLY THREE OUT OF THE 10 RESPONDENTS VIEWED IT AS A SERIOUS PROBLEM, AND THE REMAINING SEVEN OUT OF 10 CONSIDERED IT EITHER A MINOR ISSUE OR NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL.
AND THE TOP THREE CONCERNS IDENTIFIED WERE, UH, POTENTIAL PRIVACY VIOLATIONS,
[01:10:01]
WHICH WAS CITED BY NINE OUT OF 10 RESPONDENTS.DATA SHARING WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES AND PRIVATE FIRMS CITED BY SEVEN OUT OF THE 10, UH, IN CONCERNS ABOUT INACCURACY AND INEFFECTIVENESS OF THE MICROPHONES CITED BY SIX OUT OF THE 10.
AND WHEN WE ASKED WHETHER THE CITY SHOULD CONTINUE USING THESE MICROPHONES, SEVEN OUT OF THE 10 RESPONDENTS WERE UNSURE.
AND SIX OUT OF THE 10 WERE NOT CONVINCED THAT SHAW WATER IS AN EFFECTIVE TOOL FOR ADDRESSING GUN VIOLENCE IN CAMBRIDGE.
UM, I'LL JUST READ A COUPLE OF QUOTES, BUT THEY'RE ALSO UP HERE, UM, FROM, FROM THE RESIDENT, UH, RESPONDENTS, UM, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF THEY WERE SPREAD OUT ACROSS THE CITY AND NOT JUST IN NEIGHBORHOODS OF COLOR RACIAL PROFILING.
NO, THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO THIS QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD CONTINUE.
NO, BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING THEM IN PLACES OF COLOR, IT'S PROFILING, AND IF IT'S NOT USED IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S BIASED.
SO THIS IS A, A THEME THROUGHOUT THE, THE SURVEYS ONE THAT THE BLACK RESPONSE DOES NOT NECESSARILY AGREE WITH, BUT THIS IS WHAT WAS, UM, THE CONCERN WAS, UM, SLIDE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO, UM, AT SEVERAL COMMUNITY EDUCATION EVENTS ON SHOTSPOTTER, WE PROVIDED PRINTED SURVEYS AS WELL.
UM, AND RESPONDENTS RANGE BETWEEN 14 AND 70 YEARS OLD, UM, AND ALL OF OUR CAMBRIDGE RESIDENTS, SOME WERE HOMEOWNERS, RENTERS, SENIORS IN SUBSIDIZED HOUSING, INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN DISABLED, UM, HOUSING FOR DISABLED ADULTS.
UM, THERE WERE NINE RESPONDENTS TO THIS PHYSICAL, UM, PAPER, UH, SURVEY, UH, AND MORE THAN HALF IDENTIFIED AS BLACK AND OR AFRICAN DESCENDANT.
A GREAT MAJORITY OF THE RESPONDENTS DID NOT VIEW GUN VIOLENCE AS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE IN CAMBRIDGE, UM, ESPECIALLY IN THEIR OWN COMMUNITIES, IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS.
AGAIN, THESE WERE FOCUSED PRIMARILY IN THE PORT AND COAST, UH, RIVERSIDE.
UM, SO AS WITH THE VIRTUAL SURVEY, THE PRIMARY CONCERN WAS THE POTENTIAL FOR RACIAL PROFILING DUE TO, UM, THE INEQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MICROPHONES.
SO OVERALL, THE RESPONDENTS FELT THAT THESE MICROPHONES SHOULD BE DEPLOYED, UM, SHOULDN'T, SHOULD NOT BE REPORT, UH, DEPLOYED WITHOUT FIRST HAVING MEANINGFUL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE RESIDENTS IN THOSE COMMUNITIES.
UM, RIGHT, SO THE EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE MICROPHONES WAS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN TO THE RESIDENTS.
AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT, UM, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE, AT LEAST FROM THE LEAKED MICROPHONE LOCATIONS THAT SOUND THINKING HAS EVER DISTRIBUTED MICROPHONES ACROSS ANY MUNICIPALITY EQUITABLY JUST NAMING THAT
UM, AND THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED IN ACADEMIC AND LEGAL CONTEXT.
UM, FOR EXAMPLE, SOCIOLOGISTS ROBERT VARGAS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO HAS ARGUED THAT THE CONCENTRATION OF SHOTS SPOT MICROPHONES IS SPECIFIC IN SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS CAN AND HAVE FUNCTIONED AS A FORM OF RACIAL PROFILING.
AND IN WILLIAMS V UH, CITY OF CHICAGO, WHICH WAS MENTIONED BY, UM, ANOTHER SPEAKER, PLAINTIFFS ALLEGED THAT THE CHICAGO POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEIR RELIANCE ON SHOTS SPOTTER, PRIMARILY IN BLACK AND HISPANIC NEIGHBORHOODS, CONTRIBUTED TO WRONGFUL DETENTIONS AND UNFOUNDED CHARGES.
AND THE LAWSUIT BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE MCCARTHY JUSTICE CENTER CHALLENGE, UH, THE CONTINUED USE OF OF SHOTS SPOTTER AS A TECHNOLOGY, UM, AND THAT THE CITY'S OWN INSPECTOR GENERAL FOUND IT TO BE, UM, SIGNIFICANTLY INACCURATE.
AND THE CASE ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN A MULTIMILLION DOLLAR SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHICAGO AND MICHAEL WILLIAMS, THE PRIMARY PLAINTIFF.
PLAINTIFF, UH, CAMBRIDGE, OF COURSE, IS NOT IMMUNE TO SUCH THINGS.
WE HAVE HAD A SIMILAR CASE IN CAMBRIDGE, AND IT'S STILL POSSIBLE THAT THAT PERSON CAN BRING UP A SUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
SO, GIVEN THESE CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR CAMBRIDGE, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WE SHOULD REMOVE THE, THE MICROPHONES ENTIRELY.
UH, WE URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS A POLICY ORDER DIRECTING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE TO WITHDRAW FROM THE SHOTS SPOTTER CONTRACT, WHICH RIGHT NOW IS BETWEEN THE METRO BOSTON HOMELAND SECURITY REGION AND SOUND THINKING, NOT WITH THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
AND WE ALSO CALL FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE DEVICES AND INVESTMENT IN COMMUNITY-BASED SOLUTIONS.
AT OUR MOST RECENT COMMUNITY EDUCATION EVENT HELD IN COLLABORATION WITH THE ALLIANCE OF CAMBRIDGE TENANTS, THE ORGANIZATION THAT REPRESENTS PUBLIC HOUSING, UM, AND VOUCHER HOLDERS IN CAMBRIDGE, WE HEARD ONE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF SHOTS SPOTTER, WHICH WAS, WHEN SPOTS WHEN SHOTS SPOTTER SENDS AN ALERT TO THE POLICE, THEY RESPOND.
IN CONTRAST, RESIDENTS SHARED THAT WHEN THEY CALL THE POLICE, THEY DO NOT ALWAYS COME, OR THEY COME LONG AFTER THE SHOTS HAVE BEEN REPORTED.
SO WE BELIEVE THAT THIS SHOULD BE REFRAMED RATHER THAN RELYING ON SHOTSPOTTER.
RESIDENTS OF THE PORT SHOULD HAVE CONSISTENT AND TIMELY ACCESS TO EMERGENCY SERVICES.
COMMUNITIES SHOULD NOT HAVE TO DEPEND ON A PRIVATE CORPORATION BASED IN CALIFORNIA TO
[01:15:01]
RECEIVE THE SERVICES THEY NEED.SO, AGAIN, MY NAME IS MASON QUARTZ.
UM, I'M AN ATTORNEY AT THE HARVARD CYBER LAW CLINIC, AND FOR, UH, ALMOST A YEAR NOW, WE'VE BEEN REPRESENTING THE BLACK RESPONSE IN TRYING TO GET MORE INFORMATION ABOUT SHOT SPOTTER AND SPECIFICALLY THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE'S RELATIONSHIP WITH SOUND THINKING.
UM, SO WE WORKED TOGETHER, UH, OVER THE SUMMER OF 2025, AND IN FALL 2025, WE PUT OUT A SERIES OF PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS TO TRY TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT THE LEGAL RELATIONSHIP IS BETWEEN THE CITY AND SOUND THINKING HOW SHOT SPOTTERS BEING USED, WHAT THE TERMS OF, UH, LIMITS ON THOSE USE ARE.
AND, UM, I WAS SURPRISED AT LEAST, UH, TO FIND INITIALLY, UM, THE RESPONSE WAS, THERE IS NO LEGAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND SOUND THINKING.
IT'S ENTIRELY MANAGED BY A CONTRACT BETWEEN SOUND THINKING AND THE CITY OF BOSTON, SPECIFICALLY BOSTON'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.
UM, AFTER SOME DISCUSSIONS, UM, AND SOME HELP FROM SOME CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, WE WERE ABLE TO GET SOME RECORDS, UH, FROM, FROM THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE.
AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THE ONLY, APPARENTLY THE ONLY COPY OF THE AGREEMENT, UM, THAT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE HAS ACCESS TO IS NOT EVEN AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT.
IT'S A SAMPLE AGREEMENT FROM 2023, THE ACTUAL TERMS OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN SOUND THINKING IN BOSTON, WHICH BOSTON, UH, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ESSENTIALLY MANAGES THE GRANT UNDER WHICH CAMBRIDGE IS DEPLOYING SHOT SPOTTER APPARENTLY HAS NEVER BEEN SEEN BY THE CITY.
UH, OTHER THAN THAT, THE ONLY COMMUNICATIONS WE FOUND WERE DIRECT COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND SOUND THINKING, NOT GOING THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER, NOT GOING THROUGH, UH, THE CITY COUNCIL.
UM, AND SO THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHERE WE KIND OF CAME INTO UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THIS LACK OF DEMOCRATIC OVERSIGHT, THAT BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL GRANT BEING MANAGED THROUGH THE BOSTON CITY, UH, THE BOSTON OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, THERE REALLY IS NO LOCAL CAMBRIDGE GOVERNANCE, UM, FOR THIS DEPLOYMENT OF SHOTSPOTTER.
SO WE SENT OUT A REQUEST TO THE BOSTON OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT FOR THEIR COPIES OF THE CONTRACTS, 'CAUSE WE WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE TERMS ARE.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN AS COOPERATIVE AS CAMBRIDGE.
IN FACT, THEY STOPPED RESPONDING TO OUR EMAILS A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE WORKING ON THAT.
WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OUR WAYS.
UM, WE ALSO SENT OUT A THIRD REQUEST, WHICH WAS TO THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO GET SOME INFORMATION ON DATA ABOUT HOW SHOT SPOTTER IS BEING USED, WHAT KIND OF DATA THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SEES, UH, WHO HAS ACCESS TO THAT DATA.
A LOT OF THAT WAS BECAUSE THE BLACK RESPONSE, UM, IN ADDITION TO A LOT OF THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE ON COMMUNITY PERCEPTION, WANTS TO ESSENTIALLY DOUBLE CHECK SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT HAVE COME OUT IN, UH, POLICE REPORTS.
UM, THEY HAVE THE DASHBOARD ALREADY THAT, UH, RELIES ON PUBLIC DATA, UM, TO UNDERSTAND, UH, WHERE, UH, ALERTS ARE HAPPENING AND, AND, AND WHEN THOSE ALERTS ARE RESULTING IN, UM, REPORTS OF SHOTS FIRED.
UH, HOWEVER, WE'RE MISSING A LOT OF DATA ABOUT THE, THE EVENTS THAT ARE NEVER REPORTED, RIGHT? THE ALERTS THAT DON'T END UP, UH, FI FINDING SHOTS FIRED.
UM, AND SO WE'RE ALSO WAITING FOR INFORMATION ON THAT.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT RECENTLY GOT A NEW RECORDS ACCESS OFFICER, SO I'M REALLY HOPING THAT WE'LL HEAR FROM THEM SOON ON THAT REQUEST.
UM, BUT SO FAR THE PICTURE THAT THE PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS HAVE PAINTED IS THAT CAMBRIDGE DOES NOT.
THE CAMBRIDGE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY MANAGER, UM, DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF INVOLVEMENT IN THE USE OF SHOTS SPOTTER.
AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN A RECURRING THEME THAT WE'VE HEARD HERE TODAY, IS THAT PEOPLE ARE FRUSTRATED AT THE LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND THE LACK OF LOCAL GOVERNANCE OVER THIS OPTION.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, UH, I'M CERTAINLY HOPING THAT WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, WHERE WE CAN GET SOME MORE INFORMATION, WE CAN GET SOME DATA FROM CPD THAT HELPS US, UM, YOU KNOW, DO OUR OWN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SHOTSPOTTER.
WE HAVE A LOT OF DATA FROM OTHER CITIES SUGGESTING THAT IT'S NOT VERY EFFECTIVE.
UH, BUT OF COURSE, LOCAL DATA, LOCAL INFORMATION IS THE BEST PROOF WE CAN HAVE.
UM, AND, UM, WE'LL ALSO HOPEFULLY HEAR FROM BOSTON OEM AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT.
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR IN THE 2003 SAMPLE AGREEMENT IS NOT VERY REASSURING.
AGAIN, AS MANY PEOPLE HAVE POINTED OUT, UH, THE TERMS OF THOSE AGREEMENTS SAY THAT SOUND THINKING OWNS ALL THE DATA, AND THEY GET TO CHOOSE WHO TO SHARE IT WITH.
UM, AGAIN, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE, WE, WE, MEANING THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A LEGAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SOUND THINKING.
THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY, UH, FOR THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, UH, WHETHER THAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDENT OR THE CITY GOVERNMENT OR EVEN THE POLICE TO OBJECT TO SOUND THINKING, DOING ANYTHING WITH DATA THAT'S RECORDED IN OUR CITY.
[01:20:01]
UM, AND ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS WE HAVE WITH THAT DATA, OF COURSE, IS IT GETTING BACK TO CERTAIN FEDERAL AGENCIES, ESPECIALLY ICE.AND SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO SPENCER TO TALK ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR CONCERN.
UH, I ALSO HAVE SLIDES IF YOU COULD PLEASE PULL THOSE UP.
I, AND MEANWHILE, I HAVEN'T BEEN FOLLOWING ALONG TOO WELL WITH TIME.
DO I STILL HAVE MADAM CHAIR? DO I STILL HAVE 15 MINUTES? ABOUT 10 MINUTES? SURE, I CAN DO 10.
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW ME, I PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED HERE IN JUNE OF 2025.
I'M AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AT BOSTON UNIVERSITY.
I, OF COURSE, DON'T REPRESENT MY EMPLOYER HERE, NOR AM I BEING PAID, NOR DO I REPRESENT THE BLACK RESPONSE.
I'M WAS ASKED TO CONTRIBUTE MY KNOWLEDGE HERE.
SO, THE LAST TIME I PRESENTED MY COMMENTS WERE VERY DIFFERENT.
I WALKED PEOPLE THROUGH A RANGE OF FALSE AND MISLEADING CLAIMS MADE BY SOUND THINKING THE PARENT COMPANY OF SHOT SPOTTER.
UM, I SPECIFICALLY SHOWED SHOT SPOTTER QUITE OFTEN FAILS TO DETECT GUNSHOTS, ALSO OFTEN SINCE POLICE OUT TO AREAS WHERE THEY CAN FIND NO EVIDENCE OF A GUNSHOT.
I ALSO SHOWED THAT DATA ABOUT SHOT SPOTTER INCOMPLETE AND HARD TO COME BY.
YOU JUST HEARD ABOUT THIS FROM THE ATTORNEY MASON COURTS.
AT THE END, I'LL TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES TO SHOT SPOTTER, BUT THE MAIN THING I TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME WERE THE POTENTIAL HARMS OF SHOT SPOTTER.
UM, I DISCUSSED HOW SHOT SPOTTER ALERTS MAY EXPOSE PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY BLACK AND BROWN PEOPLE TO INVOLUNTARY ENCOUNTERS WITH POLICE.
UH, THE RESPONSE OF CPD, AS YOU'LL LIKELY SEE IN, IN THEIR PRESENTATION IN A MOMENT, WAS THAT THEY'VE NEVER RECEIVED A FORMAL COMPLAINT ABOUT SHOT SPOTTER.
BUT MANY PEOPLE DO NOT TRUST CAMBRIDGE POLICE'S COMPLAINT SYSTEM.
AS ONE SPEAKER DURING COMMENT EARLIER TODAY POINTED OUT, THEY'LL ONLY EXPRESS CONCERNS UNDER ANONYMITY.
OTHERS ARE HERE DESPITE HAVING TO TAKE TIME OFF WORK.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHEN POLICE SHOW UP SOMEWHERE, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY DON'T SAY, HELLO EVERYONE, WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF A SHOT SPOTTER ALERT.
SO WHEN PEOPLE HAVE AN ENCOUNTER WITH POLICE THAT DOESN'T GO WELL, THEY DON'T KNOW THAT SHOT SPOTTER WAS THE CAUSE.
AND SO IT'S UNSURPRISING THAT NO ONE FILES A COMPLAINT ABOUT SHOT SPOTTER.
GIVEN WHAT YOU JUST HEARD IN PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, FROM PEOPLE FROM A VARIETY OF RACIAL CLASS AND RESIDENTIAL BACKGROUNDS, I THINK IT'S WORTH CONSIDERING THE CONCERNS ABOUT SHOT SPOTTER ARE RINGING PRETTY LOUDLY REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY MANIFEST IN CBDS OFFICIAL COMPLAINT SYSTEM.
I ALSO DISCUSSED POSSIBLE CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS AND LEGAL VIOLATIONS AS WELL, AND RESULTING RELIABILITY CONCERNS.
THOSE I SAW ECHOED IN, IN PUBLIC COMMENT TODAY.
INTERESTINGLY, NO ONE FROM CPD OR CITY ADMINISTRATION HAS DENIED THAT THE USE OF SHOT SPOTTER VIOLATES TITLE SIX OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OR THE MASSACHUSETTS WIRETAP ACT, OR THAT IT FACES LIABILITY, UH, AS A RESPONSE OR AS A RESULT.
NOW, PERHAPS CPDS RESPONSE WOULD BE, YOU'RE LIKELY TO SEE FROM THEIR PRESENTATION IN A MOMENT, 'CAUSE I'VE REVIEWED THE SLIDES.
THERE'S A CLAIM THERE, QUOTE, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CONVERSATION RECORDED IN CAMBRIDGE.
SO AGAIN, YOU'LL PROBABLY SEE THESE WORDS IN A MOMENT.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CONVERSATION RECORDED IN CAMBRIDGE IN QUOTE, THIS IS FALSE, AS WAS MADE CLEAR IN PUBLIC COMMENT.
AND AS THE PROFESSOR OF ACOUSTIC ENGINEERING MADE CLEAR BACK IN JUNE, NO SENSOR NEEDS TO BE ACTIVATED FOR RECORDING TO HAPPEN.
THIS STATEMENT CONFUSES SENSOR ACTIVATION WITH DEVICE RECORDING.
DEVICE RECORDING IS CONTINUAL.
IN FACT, IN CAMBRIDGE, EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION IN RANGE OF A SENSOR HAS BEEN RECORDED.
SO I REALLY DO URGE THE CPD TO RETHINK THINGS BEFORE THEY, UH, GIVE THEIR PRESENTATION DIRECTLY AFTER MINE.
IN THIS CONTEXT, IT'S A BIT PECULIAR TO SEE WHAT CPD HAS CLAIMED TO BE SUCCESS STORIES OF SHOT SPOTTER, AS YOU'LL LIKELY SEE IN A MOMENT, THERE ARE TWO.
ONE IS THAT THEY FOUND A GUY AND GOT HIM CONVICTED OF A CRIME.
AND IT DOES APPEAR THAT HE VIOLATED A RESTRAINING ORDER, BUT HE'S NOT THE ONE WHO FIRED THE GUN.
AND THE FACT THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO HANG A DIFFERENT CHARGE ON HIM IS, IS NOT IN MIND A SUCCESS STORY IF THE PURPOSE IS TO DETECT GUN VIOLENCE.
THE OTHER STORIES THAT THEY FOUND, A DIFFERENT GUN THAT APPEARS, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, BE UNRELATED TO THE SHOT SPOTTER ALERT.
SO IF CPD BELIEVES IT'S A SUCCESS TO TAKE GUNSHOT ALERTS AND THEN ARREST SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T FIRE A GUN AND THEN ALSO LOCATE A GUN THAT WAS NOT FIRED, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BE HONEST AND CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
BUT TODAY I'VE BEEN FOCUSED, I'VE BEEN ASKED, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, TO FOCUS ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE USE OF SHOT SPOTTER JEOPARDIZES CAMBRIDGE AS A SANCTUARY CITY.
SO IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
I'LL GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND IN THE REMAINDER OF MY PRESENTATION.
PLEASE TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS DATA MIGHT BE SHARED.
THERE'S STILL A LOT THAT'S UNKNOWN HERE, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'LL BE GETTING AT.
BECAUSE THE NINE 11 ATTACKS WERE WIDELY INTERPRETED AS AN INTELLIGENCE FAILURE, THE FEDERAL
[01:25:01]
GOVERNMENT BUILT UP INFRASTRUCTURE SUBSTANTIALLY, INCLUDING CREATING THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY.THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OUR PURPOSES BECAUSE, UH, CAMBRIDGE IS PART OF THE METRO BOSTON HOMELAND SECURITY REGION AND THE BOSTON REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER, THEIR URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANTS THAT FUND SHOTSPOTTER POSSIBLY INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCES.
BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND MUCH ABOUT THAT.
BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE, UH, SHORT ON TIME.
I WON'T SAY MUCH ABOUT THE, THE FIRST COUPLE OF POINTS.
UH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS CPD CLAIMS THEY DON'T COLLECT IMMIGRATION STATUS INFORMATION.
SO THERE'S NOT MUCH TO TALK ABOUT THERE, BUT IT, I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCES TO SEE WHAT DATA IS BEING SHARED THERE, TO ALSO LOOK AT WHAT DATA ARE BEING SENT TO BRICK.
AGAIN, THAT'S THE BOSTON REGIONAL INTELLIGENCE CENTER ON A BOSTON.
WHAT POLICE REPORT DATA ARE SENT THERE, WHAT FIELD INTERVIEW DATA ARE SENT THERE? UH, LA EARLIER IN THE HEARING IN APRIL ABOUT, UH, THE IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT TRACKER, IT WAS DISCUSSED HOW CBD SEND FINGERPRINT DATA TO THE AUTOMATED FINGERPRINT IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM THAT CAN BE ACCESSED BY ICE.
AND AS, UH, WAS TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, THIS HAS LED TO AN ICE ATTAINMENT HERE IN CAMBRIDGE.
SO NOW I'LL JUST TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE DIFFERENT WAYS THAT DATA MIGHT BE SHARED.
AGAIN, THIS IS, UH, SPECULATIVE AND WE GOTTA GET, GET A LOT MORE INFORMATION TO FIGURE THIS OUT BY FIRST CAMBRIDGE POLICE AND THEN SOUND THINKING.
I'LL START WITH CAMBRIDGE POLICE.
SO AS I MENTIONED, ONE MIGHT BE THROUGH FUSION CENTERS, UM, AND BRICK IS THE KEY ONE HERE.
ANOTHER IS THROUGH INTER-AGENCY TASK FORCES.
QUITE OFTEN LOCAL POLICE KNOW, STATE POLICE, STATE POLICE KNOW, NATIONAL POLICE, DHS, ICE PHONE CALLS, TEXTS CAN GO BACK AND FORTH REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THAT'S OUTSIDE, UH, FORMAL DEPARTMENTAL POLICIES.
SO ONE WAY THIS COULD HAPPEN IS DATA COULD GO FROM CAMBRIDGE POLICE TO SOME OTHER ENTITY AND THEN FROM THERE TO DHS OR ICE.
SO CAMBRIDGE POLICE SHARE CRIME SHARE CRIME TRACER COP LINK DATA, THAT'S ALSO, UH, CRIME TRACER IS ALSO OWNED BY THE PARENT COMPANY.
SOUND THINKING, JUST LIKE SHOT SPOTTER IS THAT GOES TO STATE POLICE AND MASSACHUSETTS STATE POLICE ARE PRETTY WELL KNOWN TO COOPERATE EXTENSIVELY WITH DHS AND ICE.
OR THEY COULD SHARE INFORMATION WITH BOSTON POLICE.
BOSTON POLICE COULD USE THAT TO ENTER INFORMATION INTO A GANG DATABASE.
BOSTON IS INFAMOUS FOR ITS GANG DATABASE AND BASED ON NO CRIMINAL CONVICTION, BUT JUST PLACEMENT IN THAT GANG DATABASE, UH, THEY COULD BE DETAINED OR DEPORTED BY ICE.
SO HERE'S WHAT I SUSPECT IS THE MOST LIKELY PATHWAY FROM CPD TO ICE IS THAT AFTER THERE'S A SHOT SPOTTER ALERT, THERE'S AN ENCOUNTER WITH POLICE THAT GENERATES SOME FORM OF NEW DATA, ESPECIALLY IF THERE'S AN ARREST MADE.
AND THEN THAT DATA WOULD BE SHARED WITH DHS OR ICE.
THAT COULD BE, UM, ALSO THROUGH MASSACHUSETTS TRIAL COURTS, UH, MIDDLESEX COUNTY DA'S OFFICE, MIDDLESEX COUNTY SHERIFFS.
UM, PRESUMABLY THIS HAS ALREADY HAPPENED BECAUSE SHOT SPOT ALERTS HAVE LED TO ARRESTS, ARREST, LEAD TO FINGERPRINTS.
FINGERPRINTS ARE PUT INTO THE DATABASE AND THE DATABASE IS ACCESSIBLE BY ICE.
AND THEN NEXT I'LL GO TO ON THE FOLLOWING SLIDE, THANKS.
WAYS THAT DATA MIGHT BE SHARED BY SOUND THINKING, THE PARENT COMPANY OF SHOT SPOTTER.
SO, BECAUSE THEY CAN DO WITH, WITH WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THE DATA, THEY MIGHT SHARE IT WITH ANYONE WHO ASKS FOR IT.
OR THEY MIGHT DO IT FOR MONEY, UM, SPECIFICALLY, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, SOUND THINKING COULD BE BOUGHT BY ANOTHER COMPANY AND THEN THAT COMPANY WOULD OWN THE DATA.
THIS IS A REMINDER FROM LAST TIME ALL DATA REMAINS THE SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF SST.
SO SOUND THINKING MIGHT CLAIM THAT THEY WILL OR WON'T DO SOMETHING, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, THE ACTUAL LEGAL LANGUAGE, THEY'RE SAYING, THIS IS OUR PROPERTY, NO ONE ELSE'S.
THIS IS KIND OF A REMINDER FROM LAST TIME.
THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO USE ANY AND ALL DATA FOR ANY PURPOSE.
OF COURSE, THEY COULD ALSO GET SUBPOENAED BY ICE, IN WHICH CASE THEY'D BE OBLIGATED TO RELEASE DATA WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO.
BUT MOST LIKELY THEY WOULD SHARE DATA JUST THROUGH THEIR CLIENT, THE BOSTON'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT THROUGH THE METRO BOSTON HOMELAND SECURITY REGION.
SO IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT RELEASING DATA IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST, IT'S JUST ABOUT COMMUNICATING WITH THEIR CLIENT.
AND THE CLIENT HAS CONNECTIONS TO DHS BECAUSE THE CLIENT IS NOT CAMBRIDGE CITY GOVERNMENT.
SO TO WRAP UP, HAS DATA ALREADY BEEN SHARED WITH ICE? WELL, WE ALREADY KNOW THERE ARE DATA PIPELINES FROM CAMBRIDGE POLICE TO ICE.
[01:30:01]
PIPELINES ARE.AND SO I THINK FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN KIND OF CLOSING LOOPHOLES IN SANCTUARY CITY POLICIES, THE IMPORTANT THING WOULD BE TO IDENTIFY ALL THOSE PIPELINES, THE PIPELINE TO BRICK, THE PIPELINE TO THE HOMELAND, UH, SECURITY PLANNING REGION AND MORE FINGERPRINTING YOU ALL ALREADY KNOW ABOUT.
THERE'S DISCRETION BY THE WAY, INVOLVED WITH FINGERPRINTING.
YOU CAN CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO ARREST SOMEBODY, YOU CAN CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO FINGERPRINT THEM.
AND THEN IF IT'S A MISDEMEANOR ARREST, YOU CAN CHOOSE WHETHER TO SEND THE FINGERPRINT DATA ALONG.
BUT FOR, THERE'S A LOT OF DATA WE ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S BEING, UH, SHARED WITH ICE.
AND SO WHAT I'VE DONE TODAY IS JUST TO, UM, POINT OUT SOME OF THE PIPELINES.
SO IT'S REALLY MISLEADING TO SAY, AS YOU'LL LIKELY HEAR IN A MOMENT FROM THE, UH, CAMBRIDGE POLICE PRESENTATION THAT QUOTE, ONLY SELECT CAMBRIDGE POLICE PERSONNEL HAVE ACCESS TO OUR SHOT SPOTTER DATA END QUOTE, THE PHRASE, OUR DATA IS VERY MISLEADING.
THE DATA ARE OWNED BY SOUND THINKING, NOT BY CPD AND CPD ROUTINELY AND SYSTEMATICALLY SHARES.
I SUSPECT QUITE A BIT OF DATA, UM, THROUGH, UH, TO ICE INDIRECTLY.
IT LOOKS LIKE I'VE GOT A, ANOTHER COMMENT PERHAPS FROM, UH, GIDEON OF THE ACL U, BUT MY PART IS DONE.
DO YOU MIND KEEPING IT TO ONE TO THREE MINUTES? ABSOLUTELY.
I'M A POLICY COUNCIL WITH THE A CLU OF MASSACHUSETTS AND OUR TECHNOLOGY FOR LIBERTY PROGRAM.
AND I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS A FEW QUICK POINTS ABOUT, UH, THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY ORDINANCE AND THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS THAT, UH, ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR OUR REVIEW.
SO, UH, ULTIMATELY WE THINK THAT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AND THE COUNCIL, UH, TODAY AND IN THE COMING FEW WEEKS IS, UM, UNDER THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY ORDINANCE, DOES SHOT SPOTTER MEET THE STANDARD FOR CONTINUED USE? AND BASED ON THE RECORD THAT WE'VE HEARD TODAY, WE THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT IT DOES NOT ON TWO INDEPENDENT GROUNDS.
UM, SO THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY ORDINANCE EXPLICITLY COVERS GUNSHOT DETECTION TECHNOLOGY.
AND UNDER SECTION 2.12 6.060 C OF THE ORDINANCE, THE COUNCIL, UH, MUST REASSESS, UH, TWO QUESTIONS.
WHETHER THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH THE COST AND WHETHER REASONABLE SAFEGUARDS EXIST FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES.
AND WE THINK, UH, THAT THE LAW IS EXPLICIT.
WE KNOW IT'S EXPLICIT THAT, UM, BOTH OF THOSE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET.
AND BECAUSE THOSE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET, UH, THE CITY RETAINS THE RIGHT TO DISAPPROVE FURTHER USE OF THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
UM, THIS AUTHORITY IS NOT BY ANY MEANS A LAST RESORT.
IT'S AN INDEPENDENT OPTION TRIGGERED WHENEVER THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THESE STANDARDS ARE NOT SATISFIED, WHICH IS CLEAR BASED ON THE ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE REPORTING.
UH, FIRST WE THINK THAT CIVIL LIBERTIES AND CIVIL RIGHTS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARDED.
CAMBRIDGE DOES NOT CONTROL THE TERMS OF THE SHOT SPOTTER CONTRACT.
THE DATA, HOW THE DATA MAY BE SHARE SHARED, PARTICULARLY WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES, AS WE JUST HEARD.
AND SECOND, THE BENEFITS DO NOT OUTWEIGH THE COST.
THE SYSTEM MISSES A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF ACTUAL SHOOTINGS WHILE GENERATING A HIGH VOLUME OF UNCONFIRMED ALERTS.
UM, ALSO IN CLOSING, I JUST WANNA BRIEFLY ADDRESS, UH, SOME POINTS IN THE SHOT SPOTTER CONTRACT.
IT OBLIG OBLIGATES SOUND THINKING ONLY TO SHOW UP AND PROVIDE A PRODUCT THAT QUOTE MEETS OR EXCEEDS INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
AND THAT INDUSTRY STANDARD IS NOT WELL-DEFINED AT ALL.
UM, AND WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE ISSUES WITH THE SOUND THINKING'S, UH, ACOUSTIC GUNSHOT RECOGNITION TECHNOLOGY AT GREAT LENGTH TODAY.
UM, THE CONTRACT ULTIMATELY SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ACCURACY, DATA RETENTION, FEDERAL ACCESS, CIVIL RIGHTS IMPACT, OR COMMUNITY'S OVERSIGHT OBLIGATIONS.
AND ON DATA GOVERNANCE SPECIFICALLY, THE CONTRACT CONTAINS NO LANGUAGE, UH, ADDRESSING WHO MAY ACCESS SHOT SPOT OR ALERT DATA OR AUDIO RECORDINGS, HOW LONG THOSE AUDIO RECORDINGS OR RELATED LOCATION DATA, UH, MAY BE RETAINED, WHETHER THAT DATA MAY BE SHARED WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES, WHETHER AUDIO OR ALERT DATA MAY BE USED IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS BEYOND THE INITIAL TRIGGERING INCIDENT.
UM, AND WHAT HAPPENS TO DATA WHEN THE CONTRACT EXPIRES OR IF IT IS TERMINATED.
UM, SO IN CLOSING, I ECHO, UH, MY PANELISTS REMARKS AND WE ENCOURAGE THE CITY COUNCIL, UH, TO END ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH SOUND THINKING AND REMOVE THESE SENSORS.
GO AHEAD AND TURN TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND JUST WANNA GIVE YOU A HEADS UP.
I MAY INTERRUPT TOWARDS THE END SO THAT WE MAY EXTEND TIME IF WE NEED IT.
I'LL TALK AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
JUST WANNA, UM, TALK ABOUT WHAT SHOT SPOTTER IS.
UM, IT'S A NETWORK OF ACOUSTIC SENSORS THAT CAN DETECT, LOCATE, AND ALERT POLICE TO GUNSHOT INCIDENTS.
INSTALLATION OF THE SYSTEM WAS APPROVED BY THE CAMBRIDGE CITY COUNCIL IN 2014.
ALL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SYSTEM FOR CAMBRIDGE AND SEVERAL OTHER CITIES ARE PAID FOR AS PART OF THE URBAN AREA
[01:35:01]
SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANT PROGRAM.THE OWNER OF SHOTSPOTTER INSTALLED THE SENSORS AND CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN THEM.
THE LOCATIONS OF THE SENSORS ARE NOT PUBLIC, PUBLICLY DISCLOSED TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF THE SYSTEM.
UM, THESE ARE THE, THE, UM, CITIES AND TOWNS THAT USE SHOT SPOTTER IN MASSACHUSETTS.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, SEVEN OF THEM ARE, UM, WELCOMING COMMUNITIES.
SO BACK IN, UH, SO THE COVERAGE AREA HAS BEEN DETERMINED USING THE HISTORICAL DATA ON SHOOTING INCIDENTS FROM CPD CRIME ANALYSIS.
IN THE 10 PLUS YEARS, THE SYSTEM HAS BEEN OPERATIONAL.
UH, 76% OF THE CONFIRMED SHOOTINGS CITYWIDE HAVE BEEN TAKEN, PLA HAVE TAKEN PLACE IN THE COVERAGE AREA.
THE CO THE CURRENT COVERAGE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 1.2 SQUARE MI TWO FIVE SQUARE MILES AND COVERS SEVERAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY.
AND ANY EXPANSION OF THE SYSTEM WOULD BE DONE TO A PUBLIC PROCESS WITH INPUT FROM ALL COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS.
UM, BREAKING IT DOWN FROM FOR NUMBERS, UH, FOR THE FOR SHOT SPOTTED TO ACTIVATE, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN EXPLOSIVE NOISE OR SOUND MEASURING 120 DECIBELS OR GREATER.
THAT HITS THREE OR MORE SENSORS.
AND FOR COMPARISON, A HUMAN VOICE AVERAGES 60 TO 65 DECIBELS FROM 2018 TO NOW.
THE NUMBER OF GUNFIRE ALERTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM SHOTS SPOTTER IS 129.
IN THOSE 129 ALERTS, 418 ROUNDS OF GUNFIRE WERE CONFIRMED DETECTED.
UH, 9 1 1 VERSUS SHOT SPOTTER.
NOW, SHOT SPOTTER IS AN AUTOMATED TECHNOLOGY AS YOU KNOW, AND THIS IS ACTIVATED BY POTENTIAL GUNSHOT INCIDENT AND VERIFIED IN REAL TIME BY TRAINED PROFESSIONALS.
THIS RESULTS IN PROMPT NOTIFICATIONS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT WHICH CAN FACILITATE A FASTER RESPONSE.
TRADITIONAL 9 1 1 CALLS ARE DEPENDENT ON PEOPLE TAKING ACTION.
IF THE PERSON DOES NOT HAVE IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO A PHONE, KNOW THEIR LOCATION OR CHOOSES NOT TO CALL, IT ADVERSELY IMPACTS THE EMERGENCY RE RESPONSE FROM 2015 TO PRESENT, THERE HAVE BEEN 11 CONFIRMED SHOOTINGS THAT WERE DETECTED BY SHOTS SPOTTER, BUT DID NOT RESULT IN ANY 9 1 1 CALLS.
THE DATA ANALYZED BY THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE CRIME ANALYSIS UNIT OVER THE LAST DECADE HAS SHOWN THAT IN CAMBRIDGE SHOTS, SPOTTER REPORTS OF GUNFIRE ARE MORE OFTEN VERIFIED THAN THOSE REPORTED JUST THROUGH THE 9 1 1 SYSTEM 19 VERSUS 35%.
THE SHOT SPOTTER SYSTEM WILL TYPICALLY PERVA PROVIDE ALSO A MUCH SMALLER LOCATION RADIUS THAN A 9 1 1 CALL.
AND REGARDING MEDICAL AID WHEN THAT HAPPENS, OFFICES RECEIVE SHOT SPOTTER ALERTS DIRECTLY ON THEIR PHONES AND CREWS OF COMPUTERS, WHICH HAS LED TO FASTER RESPONSES AND PROMPT MEDICAL ASSISTANT WHEN SECONDS CAN MAKE THE DIFFERENCE.
I'LL GIVE YOU TWO, UH, EXAMPLES.
MAY 23RD, 2024 AT DONNELLEY FIELD, THIS IS OUT OF, UH, AN OFFICER'S REPORT.
A TOURNIQUET WAS APPLIED BY AN OFFICER, WHILE OTHER OFFICERS ASSISTED WITH APPLYING PRESSURE TO THE WOUND.
A TRAUMA WOUND DRESSING WAS ALSO APPLIED SHORTLY AFTER JULY 16TH, 2024 HARVARD STREET SHOOTING AGAIN FROM THE OFFICER'S REPORT, I WAS UNABLE TO LOCATE ANY WOUND DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF BLOOD COVERING THE VICTIM'S LEGS.
SO I APPLIED A CAT TOURNIQUET AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE AFTER THE TOURNIQUET WAS APPLIED.
ONE BULLET ENTRY WOUND WAS LOCATED HIGH ON THE VICTIM'S INNER THIGH.
OFFICERS BEGAN APPLYING HEMOSTATIC GAUZE UNTIL IT WAS, UNTIL HE WAS UNABLE TO PACK THE WOUND ANYMORE.
THEN HE APPLIED A TRAUMA DRESSING ON TOP OF THE WOUND AND ASSISTED WITH LOADING THE VICTIM.
NINE ONE ONE CALL A NEVER A NEIGHBOR, YOU KNOW, NOT GETTING 9 1 1 CALLS A NEIGHBOR SPOKE WITH OFFICERS DURING A CANVAS FOLLOWING A GUNSHOT INCIDENT.
AND BASICALLY SOMETIMES PEOPLE JUST DON'T CALL FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.
WAS LYING IN HIS BEDROOM WHEN HE HEARD THREE LOUD BANGS THAT HE INITIALLY DID NOT BELIEVE TO BE GUNSHOTS, WHICH IS WHY HE DID NOT CALL 9 1 1.
THE INCIDENT WAS CONFIRMED SHOOTING LOCATED THROUGH SHOTSPOTTER.
YOU KNOW, WITNESS LOCATION ACCOUNTS IN A GUNSHOT CASES ARE OFTEN AND VERY VAGUE FOR MANY REASONS AT TIMES CONFLICTING AND OFTEN CANNOT PROVIDE AN AN ACCURATE LOCATION.
HERE ARE FIVE WITNESS STATEMENTS FROM JULY OF 2024, GUNSHOT INCIDENT ON PUTNAM MAP.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE NUMBER OF SHOTS HEARD AND THE LOCATION VARY.
DIDN'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY CAME FROM.
BELIEVE SHE HEARD GUNSHOTS COMING FROM THE AREA OF PUTNAM AVENUE.
HEARD EIGHT GUNSHOTS COMING IN FROM THE AREA OF HOYT FIELD.
HEARD ONE GUNSHOT A PAUSE, THEN FIVE MORE.
THEY WERE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE THE SHOTS CAME FROM, BUT STATED THEY WERE VERY LOUD.
THEY HEARD AT LEAST FIVE GUNSHOTS.
THEY WERE UNSURE EXACTLY WHERE THE SHOTS CAME FROM.
SO COMPARING IT TO THE SHOT SPOTTER, UM, ACTIVATION FOR THAT CASE.
SO ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS THE WITNESS ACCOUNT.
FIVE WITNESSES RANGE BETWEEN FIVE AND EIGHT GUNSHOTS.
SHOT, SHOT, SPOTTER, ROUND COUNT THE AUDIO RECORDING OF EIGHT ROUNDS.
IF YOU COULD HIT THAT RECORDING PLEASE.
[01:40:07]
OKAY.I HAVE TO STOP THE SHARE SO THAT WE CAN FIX THE AUDIO.
AND, UH, ON THE, ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT, THE WITNESS LOCATION.
WHILE WE'RE WAITING, YES, I CAN, I CAN CONTINUE.
WE CAN WE GAUGE JUST CAN WE DO ABOUT A 20 MINUTE EXTENSION? DOES THAT SOUND OKAY WITH FOLKS? OKAY.
CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL ON THAT DOWN? COUNSELOR ZUBE? YES.
THAT'S FIVE MEMBERS VOTING? YES.
AND THEN, AND ON THE WITNESS LOCATIONS, THREE WITNESSES.
WERE NOT SURE OF THE LOCATION.
WHAT WITNESS? IF YOU LOOK ON THE, THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN, THE PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM, THAT IS THE COVERAGE AREA THAT THE WITNESSES, UM, HAD US LOOKING IN THAT BIG LARGE COVERAGE AREA.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEXT PICTURE TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, THOSE ARE WHERE THE SHOT SPOTTER, UM, ALERT PUTS THE EIGHT SHOTS IN THAT ONE PARTICULAR POSITION BETWEEN PUTNAM AND BLACKSTONE STREET, OPPOSITE OF RIVERSIDE PRESS PARK.
SO A MUCH MORE DEFINED LOCATION WHERE WE CAN, UH, RESPOND INSTEAD OF LOOKING IN MANY DIFFERENT LOCATIONS TO FIND WHETHER THERE'S A VICTIM, UM, OF A CRIME THERE.
SO WITH THE SHOT SPOTTER ACTIVATION OFFICERS WORKING WE'LL RECEIVE THE ALERT AS YOU KNOW, DIRECTLY ON THEIR PHONE OR COMPUTER INITIATING THEIR RESPONSE.
THEN EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS ALSO RECEIVES THE SHOT SPOTTER ALERT AND, AND, UH, REPORTING POTENTIAL GUNFIRE.
THEY WILL IMMEDIATELY DISPATCH OFFICES AS WELL.
THE INITIAL NUMBER OF OFFICES DISPATCH TO A NINE ONE ONE CALL REPORTING GUNSHOTS AND A SHOT SPOTTER ACTIVATION IS THE SAME WHEN OFFICERS ARRIVE.
THEY WILL LOOK FOR ANY ACTIVE THREAT, VICTIM BALLISTIC EVIDENCE OR POTENTIAL WITNESSES.
IF IT'S CONFIRMED THAT A SHOOTING OCCURRED, ADDITIONAL RESOURCES OBVIOUSLY WILL, WILL BE BROUGHT TO THE SCENE.
IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A SHOOTING, OFFICERS WILL CLEAR THE AREA AND RETURN, RETURN TO NORMAL PATROL DUTIES.
DOES NOT DEFINITIVE DEFINITIVELY MEAN THAT A SHOOTING DID NOT OCCUR MORE SIMPLY PUT AN UNFOUNDED ALERT MEANS NO EVIDENCE WAS LOCATED TO PROVE THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SHOOTING.
NO VICTIMS, NO BALLISTIC EVIDENCE, NO WITNESSES.
THAT COULD MEAN THE VICTIMS HAVE LEFT.
THAT COULD MEAN BALLISTIC EVIDENCE WAS, UH, PICKED UP, OR IT COULD HAVE HAPPENED INSIDE OF A CAR WHERE THE EVIDENCE WOULD HAVE FALLEN IN VERSUS FALLING OUT.
UM, OCCASIONAL ALERTS ARE PROVED TO BE FALSE, MAINLY DUE TO THE FOLLOWING, INDUSTRIAL LOUD INDUSTRIAL WORK.
CONSTRUCTION NOISES, FIREWORKS, A CAR BACKFIRING OR LOUDLY CRASHING OR AN OR A TRANSFORMER EXPLOSION.
DOES SHOTS BOTHER RECORD PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS? NO.
THE EVENT ALERT IS ONLY ACTIVATED WHEN THREE OR MORE SENSES ARE TRIGGERED BY AN EXPLOSIVE SOUND MEASURING 120 DECIBELS.
BOOK COMPARISON AGAIN, HUMAN VOICES AROUND 60 TO 65 AND ONE SHOULD NOT TRIGGER ANY SENSES.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CONVERSATION RECORDED IN CAMBRIDGE OF ALL THE 129 ALERTS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED, DOES SHOTS SPOTTER RESULT IN OVER-POLICING? NO.
MASSACHUSETTS COURTS HAVE SAID THAT SHOTS SPOTTER ACTIVATION ALERT ALONE DOES NOT GIVE A POLICE OFFICER REASONABLE SUSPICION TO STOP SOMEONE THERE HAVE AND THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS OR COMMUNITY COMPLAINTS RESULTING FROM A CPD RESPONSE TO A SHOT.
IS SHOT SPOTTER UTILIZED FOR IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT? NO.
THE DATA CAPTURED BY SHOTS SPOTTER, MEANING THE EXPLOSIVE SOUNDS, REGISTERING 120 DECIBELS WOULD NOT HAVE ANY USE TO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT.
IT DOES NOT IDENTIFY, CANNOT IDENTIFY ANYONE.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO INCIDENTS WHERE IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT HAS REQUESTED ANY SHORT SPOT DATA FROM CPD OR SOUND THINKING AND WE WILL NOT AND DO NOT, AND HAVE NOT SHARED INFORMATION WITH ICE.
UM, UH, RELEASE OF ANY OF THE SUCH DATA.
WE REQUIRE A JUDICIAL SUBPOENA AND BE LIMITED TO SPECIFIC CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF A GUNSHOT INCIDENT BECAUSE THAT'S ALL IT RECORDS.
JUST SOME SHOOTING STATS FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS.
TOTAL NUMBER OF CONFIRMED SHOOTINGS, UH, CITYWIDE IN 24 WAS 1425 WAS NINE AND SHOT SPOTTER.
UH, TOTAL INCIDENTS IN THE SHOT SPOTTED COVERAGE AREA IN 24 WAS 10, AND IN 25 WAS SEVEN.
A COUPLE OF REAL WORLD EXAMPLES.
AUGUST 27TH, 2022, 12:30 AM WE RESPOND TO A SHOT
[01:45:01]
SPOTTER ACTIVATION.THERE WERE NO 9 1 1 CALLS ONLY A CITIZEN OBSERVER TIP.
14 MINUTES LATER STATING THEY HEARD TWO SHOTS NAMED MCGEE STREET OFFICERS ARRIVED ON SCENE WITHIN TWO MINUTES.
TWO SPENT SHELL CASINGS WERE DISCOVERED, WHICH LED DETECTIVES TO SPEAK WITH NEIGHBORS AND REVIEW VIDEO FOOTAGE FROM THE VICINITY.
IT WAS LEARNED THAT THIS WAS RELATED TO A HIGH RISK DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE.
THE SUSPECT WAS IDENTIFIED AND CRIMINALLY CHARGED IN MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT WHERE HE WAS FOUND GUILTY ON MULTIPLE CHARGES.
SEPTEMBER, 2022, 4:07 AM POLICE RESPONDED TO A SHOT SPOTTER ACTIVATION FOR A SINGLE GUNSHOT IN THE MIDDLE OF DONNELLEY FIELD.
NO 9 1 1 CALLS RECEIVED REGARDING THE INCIDENT.
UPON ARRIVAL, OFFICERS ENCOUNTERED SEVERAL INDIVIDUALS IN THE PARK WHO PROVIDED VAGUE STATEMENTS THAT ATTRIBUTED THE ACTIVATION TO FIREWORKS OFFICERS, SEARCHED THE POCK AND ULTIMATELY RECOVERED A NINE MILLIMETER BERETTA HANDGUN WITH 14 ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION THAT HAD BEEN DISCARDED IN THE GRASS.
GIVEN THAT THE INCIDENT OCCURRED EARLY MORNING HOURS ON A WEEKDAY IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO A SCHOOL, IT IS CONCERNING TO THINK WHAT MAY HAVE HAPPENED IF OFFICERS HAD NOT RESPONDED AND RECOVERED THAT WEAPON AND CHILDREN GOING TO SCHOOL TWO HOURS AFTER THAT IF THEY HAD FOUND THAT WEAPON.
NEXT, UH, EXAM NEXT, UH, UM, AGAIN, WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE HAD ZERO USES OF FORCE OR ZERO COMPLAINTS RESULTING FROM ANY OF OUR RESPONSES TO SHOT SPOT OR ACTIVATION.
AND, UH, ONLY SELECT CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL HAVE ACCESS TO THE SHOT SPOTTED DATA.
CPD CONTROLS ALL THE SHARING AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALERTS AND OR OTHER MATERIAL COLLECTED.
CURRENTLY THE ONLY THING SHE HAD OUTSIDE OF THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS ALERT NOTIFICATIONS AND CASE MATERIALS.
ALERT NOTIFICATIONS ARE SHARED WITH SELECT MEMBERS OF SOMERVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO AID IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND INVESTIGATIONS.
AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN A STRONG CORRELATION BETWEEN GUN VIOLENCE IN BOTH COMMUNITIES, CASE MATERIALS ARE SHARED WITH THE MEMBERS OF THE MIDDLESEX DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR ACTIVE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS.
UM, I WANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, JUST TO SUM IT ALL UP, UM, A ALERT THAT OFFICERS RECEIVES ALLOW FOR GUNSHOTS ALLOWS FASTER THAN A TRADITIONAL NINE ONE ONE CALL RESULTING IN A QUICKER EMERGENCY RESPONSE THAT HAS POTENTIAL TO SAVE LIVES.
AND IT HAS, IT PROVIDES FIRST RESPONDERS WITH MORE PRECISE LOCATION OF A POTENTIAL INCIDENT THAN TRADITIONAL 9 1 1 CALLS ARE TYPICALLY ABLE TO DO IT MAKES POLICE AWARE OF AN INCIDENT EVEN WHEN THERE AREN'T ANY 9 1 1 CALLS AND HELPS INVESTIGATORS BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT TOOK PLACE IN A CONFIRMED SHOOTING INCIDENT.
I DO WANT TO DO ONE MORE AUDIO, IF YOU WOULD.
UM, AND, AND THEN JUST TO CLOSE IT OUT, UH, SHOTS BOUGHT IT PROVIDES CPD WITH RAPID PRECISE ALERTS THAT HELP US RESPOND FASTER AND MORE EFFECTIVELY WHEN EVERY SECOND MATTERS CONTINUING ITS USE IN CAMBRIDGE ENSURE AS WE REMAIN PROACTIVE, DATA-DRIVEN AND COMMITTED TO KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE.
UM, AND WE ABIDE BY ALL THE RULES AND POLICIES REGARDING ICE AND ANY KIND OF FEDERAL, WE DO NOT WANT TO AND DO NOT SHARE ANY INFORMATION WITH ANY FEDERAL AGENCIES.
SO THAT IS THE EXTENT OF OUR PRESENTATIONS.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE FLOOR TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION.
JUST TO BE MINDFUL OF TIME, WE'LL SAY ABOUT FIVE MINUTES PER COUNSELOR.
YOU WANNA GO AHEAD? THANKS, MADAM CHAIR THROUGH YOU AND THANK YOU TO, UH, THE PRESENTERS AND CITY STAFF FOR THE PRESENTATION.
UM, WE, YOU KNOW, HAD A HEARING LAST YEAR ON SHOTSPOTTER AND I THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF QUESTIONS AT THAT TIME ABOUT, UH, THE TECHNOLOGY AND DETAILS AND OTHER COUNSELORS, UH, MAY HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE.
BUT I WAS GONNA, UH, FOCUS MY QUESTION.
UM, HAD A COUPLE COMMENTS AND THEN A COUPLE QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS ON, UH, THE COMMUNITY SURVEY.
'CAUSE I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE GOTTEN REAL COMMUNITY FEEDBACK ON, UH, SHOTSPOTTER AND, AND HOW WHAT FOLKS IN CAMBRIDGE THINK ABOUT IT.
I THINK ONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD ABOUT ON THE COUNCIL AS WE THINK ABOUT SHOT SPOTTER IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO THE FOLKS WHO ARE MOST IMPACTED BY SHOT SPOTTER, UH, AND PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES THINK DO THEY WANT SHOT SPOTTER? UM, IS, AND IS THIS, YOU KNOW, AS IMPORTANT IF NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN, THAN WHAT EXPERTS AND WHAT, WHAT RESEARCH SAYS? WHAT ARE THE FOLKS MOST, YOU KNOW, IMPACTED ON THE GROUND SAYING, ARE THEY THEY ASKING FOR SHOT SPOTTER? ARE THEY NOT ASKING FOR IT? MY, UM, UH, ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT, YOU KNOW, FOLKS DO NOT PARTICULARLY WANT ONE SHOT SPOTTER THAT, UM, THEY MAY WANT MORE PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES.
THAT THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS WANTING THIS PARTICULAR TECHNOLOGY.
I'VE KNOCKED, YOU KNOW, THOUSANDS OF DOORS EVERY YEAR IN CAMBRIDGE.
THIS IS MY SIXTH YEAR ON THE COUNCIL NOW.
I'M ALWAYS OUT TALKING WITH FOLKS, INCLUDING, UH, IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE SHOT SPOTTERS EMPLOY, INCLUDING IN AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND, AND PLACES THAT DO HAVE
[01:50:01]
GUNFIRE.UM, AND YOU HEAR FOLKS ASK ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, YOU KNOW, WANTING MORE PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES.
I'VE NEVER HEARD SOMEONE SAY, YOU KNOW, I I WANT SHOT SPOTTER.
I WANT MORE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS SAYING THEY WANT MORE PUBLIC SAFETY RESOURCES.
AND I'VE NEVER HEARD FOLKS SAY THAT.
UM, BUT UNTIL NOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY DATA TO BACK THAT UP.
'CAUSE THE CITY HAD NEVER DONE A SURVEY ABOUT SHOTSPOTTER TO MY KNOWLEDGE.
NEVER DONE A SURVEY ABOUT SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IN GENERAL.
WE'VE NEVER ASKED FOLKS WHAT KIND OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES DO YOU WANT OR NOT VO OF ONE.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD A COMMUNITY GROUP REALLY TRY TO ASK FOLKS WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT AND, AND REALLY INTERESTED TO SEE THE RESULTS HERE.
UM, SO I WAS JUST WANTED TO, TO LIKE PRESENTED SOME RESULTS ON THAT AT THE HIGH LEVEL.
AND, AND, UH, SUPER INTERESTING TO SEE.
JUST WANTED TO ASK A LITTLE MORE IF YOU COULD TALK ABOUT SORT OF HOW YOU GOT THE SURVEY OUT TO PEOPLE METHODOLOGY, UM, YOU KNOW, ANY SURVEYS YOU'VE SEEN IN OTHER CITIES, COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE SHOT SPOTTER, HOW THIS COMPARES OR OR CONTRAST WITH THOSE.
AND THEN I THINK ALSO, UM, I WAS REALLY CURIOUS ABOUT, UM, WHAT, WHAT ELSE FOLKS SAID IN, IN TERMS OF IF THEY DID TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND, AND MAYBE NOT.
YOU DON'T HAVE QUANTITATIVE RESULTS ABOUT THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, IN THE, UH, IN THE QUALITATIVE WHAT PEOPLE TALKED ABOUT, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT DO FOLKS WANT WHEN WE WANT PUBLIC SAFETY.
I THINK THE, THE DATA HERE SHOW, YOU KNOW, FOLKS GENERALLY DO NOT WANT SHOT SPOTTER.
IF THEY DID WANT MORE PUBLIC SAFETY, IF THAT CAME UP AT ALL.
YOU KNOW, UH, EVEN IF IT'S NOT A, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIC PERCENT, WHAT KINDS OF THINGS DID, DID FOLKS TALK ABOUT? UM, SO THAT, THAT'S SORT OF A LOT FOR A QUESTION, BUT HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES SENSE.
WE WORKED WITH PROFESSOR DONICA GORDON OF TUFTS UNIVERSITY, UH, TO DESIGN THE SURVEY.
AND WE WORKED, UM, WITH OUR COALITION, THE STOP SHOT SPOTTER COALITION, WHICH INVOLVES A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING, UM, DEFENSE, SOMERVILLE, UM, THE MASSACHUSETTS PIRATE PARTY, UM, BOSTON, UH, DSA DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST OF BOSTON, WHICH HAS A CAMBRIDGE GROUP, UM, BDS BOSTON, SO ON.
AND WE ORGANIZED, UH, SIX CANVASSING DAYS, UM, WHERE WE CAME TOGETHER WITH BOTH PHYSICAL SURVEYS AND, UM, THE, THE VIRTUAL ONES AND ENGAGED IN CONVERSATIONS WITH FOLKS.
WE ENCOURAGED THE INDIVIDUALS TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY, WHICH IS WHY THERE WAS SUCH LOW TAKE, UM, INTAKE.
AND, UM, WE ALSO WORKED WITH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT EXPERTS ON, UH, SHOTSPOTTER, INCLUDING PROFESSOR PISTON AS WELL AS, UH, GABRIEL HU FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO, UM, VALERIE WORDER FROM HARVARD UNIVERSITY TO GIVE A SERIES OF PRESENTATIONS TO COMMUNITY MEMBERS ABOUT WHAT SHOTS SPOTTER IS AND INVITED COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO COMPLETE THE SURVEYS.
AGAIN, IT WAS COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE WERE SUCH, UM, LOW TAKES.
UM, SO GENERALLY THAT WAS HOW WE, UM, WE DIS DISSEMINATED THE, THE SURVEYS.
IT WAS, UH, SELF-ADMINISTERED, MEANING THAT IT WAS, IT WASN'T ADMINISTERED BY A MEMBER, UH, A CANVASSER OR A MEMBER OF, UH, OUR, OUR GROUP.
AND THE ANALYSIS, AGAIN, BECAUSE THE NUMBERS ARE SO LOW, IT'S NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT.
SO WE PRESENTED THE ACTUAL NUMBERS AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO, UM, TO GENERALIZE THE, THE FINDINGS.
AND WE GENERALLY LIKE TO KEEP THE VIRTUAL SURVEY DATA RESULTS SEPARATE FROM THE, UM, THE IN PAPER ONES, JUST BECAUSE, UM, THE RESPONSES WERE, UM, LONGER, THE QUALITATIVE RESPONSES WERE A LOT LONGER AND WE WANTED TO SHARE SOME OF THOSE SO THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IN TERMS OF THE RESPONSES.
AGAIN, THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT FROM, UM, THE MEMBERS OF OUR COALITION.
OUR FOCUS IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM, UM, THE QUESTIONS THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS ULTIMATELY WERE ASKING, WHICH WERE ABOUT PROFILING AND THE UNEVEN, UH, DISTRIBUTION OF THE MICROPHONES.
UM, I THINK I'LL UH, VISIT THERE FOR QUESTIONS.
WE'RE RUNNING SHORT ON TIME, BUT THEY JUST IN, IN TERMS OF COMMENTS, WHICH I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF ON TOO, I THINK OTHER FOLKS HAVE SPOKEN, UH, REALLY WELL ABOUT SORT OF PRIVACY CONCERNS.
THE IMPACT OF SHARING THIS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WE HAVE ON THE MOMENT AND, YOU KNOW, SIMILARITIES TO OTHER TECHNOLOGIES WE'VE HAD TO WRESTLE WITH IN THE COUNCIL, LIKE THE FLOCK LICENSE PLATE READERS THAT WE ULTIMATELY DECIDED TO, TO GET RID OF.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO, TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF SPOTTER AS A TECHNOLOGY AND THE REAL CONCERNS THAT RAISES FOR ME.
UM, YOU KNOW, UH, AT LEAST HALF THE TIME, UH, AS, AS WE'VE HEARD THE SHOT SPOTTER MISSES ACTUAL GUNSHOTS, AND THEN HALF THE TIME WHEN IT IS SENDING AN ALERT ABOUT, UH, A GUNSHOT, IT TURNS OUT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A GUNSHOT.
I USE THE EXAMPLE OF, OF LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL MICROPHONES WE'RE USING NOW AS JUST A, A TECHNOLOGY AND, AND WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IF WE HAD THAT
[01:55:01]
SAME RESULTS HERE.IF WE, YOU KNOW, HALF THE TIME WE'RE TURNING ON THESE MICROPHONES AND THEY JUST DIDN'T TURN ON, UH, AND THEN THE OTHER HALF OF TIME WE HAD 'EM STORED IN A BOX SOMEWHERE AND THEY JUST STARTED TURNING ON AND RECORDING WHATEVER WAS GOING ON AT THE TIME, WE WOULD STOP USING THOSE MICROPHONES.
UM, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A DISSERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS AT THE COUNCIL MEETINGS.
IT WOULD BE A WASTE OF OUR TIME AS A COUNCIL AND IT WOULD, WOULD CAUSE A DISTRACTION IF THEY WERE JUST TURNING ON SOMEWHERE WHEN THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE.
AND TO HAVE THAT RESULT RATE FOR A PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES EXPONENTIALLY MORE DANGEROUS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY AND MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH.
I THINK ONE ASPECT OF THIS TECHNOLOGY IS THAT IT CAN, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY DISCOURAGE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND BUILDING COMMUNITY TRUST.
WHEN PEOPLE ASSUME SHOT SPOTTER IS CATCHING EVERY GUNSHOT AND THEY DON'T NEED TO REPORT IT 'CAUSE SHOT SPOTTERS OUT THERE OUT THERE AND IT'S ACTUALLY MISSING HALF OF ALL OF THE ONES THAT ARE FIRED.
UM, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE TO OVER-POLICING.
WHEN, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE SAYING THAT THERE ARE GUNSHOTS FIRED AND IT TURNS OUT IT'S NOT A GUNSHOT AND SENDING THAT ONLY TO PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF RESEARCH THAT SHOWS IT'S PEOPLE ULTIMATELY THAT, THAT KEEP EACH OTHER SAFE.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE ACTUAL PEOPLE CALLING IN GUNSHOT INCIDENTS, YOU GET EXPONENTIALLY MORE INFO THAN YOU DO ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, A GUNSHOT SPOTTER DETECTION.
YOU GET INFO ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHERE IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FIRED.
YOU GET INFO ABOUT THE CONTEXT OF, OH, THE, THE PERSON WHO FIRED IT, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN FOLKS AROUND HERE.
YOU JUST GET SO MUCH MORE CONTEXT THAN YOU DO AROUND A SHOT SPOTTER THING AND THAT'S HOW YOU BUILD TRUST AND ENGAGEMENT.
UM, AND THEN THE FLIP SIDE OF SHOT SPOTTER'S INACCURACY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, SENDING POLICE ON HIGH ALERT INTO NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN THERE'S NOT A REAL GUNFIRE INCIDENT IS DANGEROUS.
IF YOU, IF WE ARE SAYING, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, A GUN THAT'S BEEN FIRED, SENDING POLICE THERE ON HIGH ALERT AND IT'S A KID WITH A FIRECRACKER AND THAT KID IS, IS RUNNING AWAY 'CAUSE HE DOESN'T WANNA GET CAUGHT WITH A FIRECRACKER, BUT THE POLICE OFFICER SHOWING UP THINKS IT'S A GUNSHOT.
YOU HAVE THIS REALLY POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS MISCOMMUNICATION THERE.
THAT SHOT SPOTTER IS DRIVING ONE OF THE, THE MANY POLICE SHOOTINGS THAT IN THIS COUNTRY THAT I THINK ABOUT A LOT AS AN INSTANCE WHERE, UH, POLICE WERE, WERE SHOWN DISPATCHED TO SHOW UP BECAUSE THEY GOT A, A REPORT OF A 14-YEAR-OLD, UH, WITH A GUN AND IT TURNED OUT IT WASN'T A GUN.
AND, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THEY WERE ABLE TO, TO DETERMINE IT OR NOT, THEY SHOT HIM AND HE WAS KILLED.
THAT'S THE KIND OF SITUATION WE, WE RISK WITH SHOT SPOTTERS SENDING POLICE INTO TO NEIGHBORHOODS IN A CASE WHERE IT'S, IT'S A FIRECRACKER, IT'S A CAR BACKFIRING, IT'S ANOTHER LOUD NOISE AF THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD QUESTIONS, UH, RAISED ABOUT POLICE TRAINING IMPLICIT BIAS WHEN THEIR POLICE SHOOTING HAPPENS.
BUT EVEN WITH THE BEST TRAINING, EVEN WITH THE BEST IMPLICIT BIAS DETECTION, YOU'RE SENDING POLICE INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD SAYING THERE'S A GUNSHOT AND THERE'S NOT.
YOU'RE JUST, IT'S A RECIPE FOR REALLY DANGEROUS CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE ARE, ARE SETTING UP WITH SHOTSPOTTER.
UM, SO I THINK IT'S FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, UM, YOU KNOW, I'LL YIELD YIELD NOW 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TIME, BUT I, UH, CONTINUE TO BE OPPOSED TO CAMBRIDGE'S USE OF SHOTSPOTTER.
UH, THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR THROUGH YOU.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATIONS.
THANK YOU TO THE FOLKS, UM, WHO COMMENTED, I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY OUR SIXTH, SEVENTH, OR EIGHTH MEETING ON THIS OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS, UM, OR SO.
UM, AND I, I DO APPRECIATE THE, UH, THE SURVEY INFORMATION.
UM, BUT JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON, ON THAT AND, AND MR. ARD, YOU SAID TOO THAT IT WAS A PRETTY SMALL SAMPLE.
UM, DO YOU HAVE ACCESS OR CAN YOU GET US ACCESS TO HOW THE, WHAT, WHAT QUESTIONS WERE ASKED? I I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT THIS.
WHEN I LISTENED TO THE PRESENTATION FROM THE FOUR OF YOU, I'M LIKE, THIS IS THE CRAZY, LIKE WE GOTTA GET RID OF THIS YESTERDAY.
I LISTENED TO THE POLICE TALK ABOUT HOW IT IS, THERE HAVE BEEN A FEW INCIDENTS WHERE IT ACTUALLY SAVED PEOPLE'S LIVES AND THEY ARRIVED FASTER, I THINK.
WELL THAT'S SORT OF COMPELLING TOO.
SO HOW YOU FRAME THE QUESTION, AND I MEAN, IF YOU CAME TO ME AND SAID THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE HAS LISTENING DEVICES ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOUR HOUSE, AND THEY'RE LISTENING TO YOUR CONVERSATION AT THE KITCHEN TABLE AND RECORDING EVERYTHING THAT YOU SAY THAT CAN BE SHARED WITH ICE, YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT.
I'M GONNA SAY DON'T LISTEN TO THAT.
IF THE SURVEY QUESTION WAS WE HAVE THIS TECHNOLOGY THAT ALLOWS US TO ARRIVE TO YOUR COMMUNITY FASTER WHEN SOMEONE MIGHT BE SHOT AND SAVE THEIR LIFE, I MIGHT THINK DIFFERENTLY.
SO I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW THE SURVEY, YOU KNOW, AND WHAT THE SURVEY IS SAYING IS IMPORTANT.
AND I, I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, I AM NOT A DEFINITIVE OF SHOT SPOTTER.
I'VE SAID ALL ALONG THAT I, I DON'T THINK IT DOES EVERYTHING THAT THE PROPONENTS SAY THAT IT DOES.
I'M STILL NOT TOTALLY CONVINCED THAT IT LISTENS TO YOU WHEN YOU'RE SITTING AT YOUR KITCHEN TABLE.
LIKE, I MEAN, ONE GROUP SAYS ONE THING, ONE GROUP SAYS ANOTHER THING.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IF WE WERE TO GET RID OF SHOT SPOTTER, I, I DON'T, I'M NOT SURE THAT WE WOULD BE ANY LESS SAFE, YOU KNOW, IN THE COMMUNITY.
UM, I AM WORRIED ABOUT WHO OWNS THE INFORMATION, WHO
[02:00:01]
THEY SHARE THAT WITH AND WHAT THEY DO WITH THAT INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY IN THE CLIMATE THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW.UM, THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHY I VOTED I, MY VOTE CHANGED ON THE FLOCK CAMERAS, RIGHT? I, I CAME INTO NEW INFORMATION, I EDUCATED MYSELF MORE AND, AND MY VOTE CHANGED.
UM, BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, I DID NOT HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT I, THAT I HAD INITIALLY.
UM, SO THAT, THAT REALLY DOES WORRY ME ABOUT, ABOUT THESE DEVICES.
BUT I GUESS, SO MY QUESTION IS, SO ON THE PRESENTATION, WHO, FOR THE FOLKS WHO WANT TO GET RID OF SHOT SPOTTER, YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED THE CASE IN CAMBRIDGE WHERE THE GENTLEMAN WAS NOT THE PERSON WHO FIRED THE GUN, BUT BUT IS, BUT WAS ARRESTED.
UM, I'D BE INTERESTED TO HEAR THE POLICE'S RESPONSE TO THAT BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T SOUND GOOD TO ME.
BUT I'D ALSO BE INTERESTED TO HEAR YOUR RESPONSE TO WHEN THE POLICE, I MEAN, THERE IS A DI NOT, WE KNOW WITNESS EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS, SOME PEOPLE SEE A RED CAR, SOME PEOPLE SEE A YELLOW CAR, SOME PEOPLE SEE A GREEN CAR.
YOU KNOW, WE SAW THE SLIDES THAT, THAT ACTUALLY WAS KIND OF COMPELLING TO ME THAT THE, THE AREA THAT THE POLICE WOULD'VE HAD TO SEARCH FOR A VICTIM WAS REALLY LARGE, BUT WITH SHOT SPOTTER, IT WAS REALLY CONCISE, WHICH I WOULD IMAGINE WOULD ALLOW YOU TO GET TO THAT VICTIM FASTER.
SO WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RESPONSE TO THE, THE INCIDENTS IN WHICH SHOT SPOTTER, WE CAN ALWAYS FIND INCIDENTS THAT IT DIDN'T WORK, BUT IN THE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO THE PERSON WHO SHOT AND IS VERY HAPPY THAT PEOPLE ARRIVE FASTER.
SO WHAT IS THE RESPONSE TO THOSE INCIDENTS WHERE IT ACTUALLY MAY HAVE LED TO A POSITIVE OUTCOME? IS THAT JUST NOT WORTH THE, YOU KNOW, NOT WORTH THE RISK? AND WHAT DO YOU SAY? MY KIDS WENT TO THE KING, TO THE KING OPEN SCHOOL, CAMBRIDGE STREET UPPER SCHOOL WHERE THAT GUN WAS FOUND.
YOU KNOW, I'M GLAD THAT THAT GUN WAS FOUND BEFORE MY KIDS WENT OUT TO RECESS.
UM, SO ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING? AND SO, I MEAN, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE POLICE, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THAT CRITICISM AND FROM YOU GUYS, HOW DO YOU RESPOND TO THE EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THAT MAYBE IT DID MAKE A POSITIVE DIFFERENCE, UH, THROUGH YOU MADAM CHAIR? UM, SO THE CASE THAT WE WERE REFERRING TO, UM, WE DO BELIEVE THAT THAT GENTLEMAN WAS THE SHOOTER IN THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE.
UM, THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE THE JURY THAT IT WAS A STARTER GUN OF SOME SORT.
IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
HE HAD, IT WAS A HIGH RISK DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM THAT WE NEVER WOULD'VE KNOWN THAT THIS HAD OCCURRED IF THERE WAS NO SHOT SPOTTER.
AND HE WAS CONVICTED OF MANY OTHER THINGS REGARDING THAT EVENT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T SHOOT.
IS THAT THE, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
IS THAT THE SAME CASE YOU EDIT IT? MM-HMM
AND, UH, SO HE WAS CONVICTED, HE WAS THERE, HE SHOT THE GUN, HE WAS CONVICTED.
HE MAY NOT HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF SHOOTING THE GUN, BUT HE WAS CONVICTED OF BEING WHERE HE WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE IN A VERY HIGH RISK DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, UM, CASE.
SO, AND THEN I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO, YOU KNOW, THE, WHAT THE POLICE SAID WHERE IT WAS HELPFUL.
WHAT, HOW DO YOU GUYS, IS THAT ACCURATE? NOT ACCURATE? SURE.
SO TAKEN AS A GENERAL MATTER, RIGHT, I'VE NOT SEEN CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT RESPONSE TIME HAS BEEN QUICKER IN CAMBRIDGE.
IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT'S, THAT SOME EVIDENCE SUGGESTS WHERE THEY'VE ACTUALLY STUDIED THIS, THAT RESPONSE TIME HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY QUICKER, A MATTER OF A FEW SECONDS.
OF COURSE, THE POINT IS EVERY SECOND COUNTS, THAT'S POSSIBLE.
UM, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN EVIDENCE THAT THAT'S THE CASE IN CAMBRIDGE.
UM, AS A GENERAL RULE, IF YOU SEND POLICE OUT SOMEWHERE, THEY MIGHT FIND THINGS LIKE GUNS.
THEY MIGHT FIND PEOPLE WHO THEY CAN THEN, UH, CHARGE WITH CRIMES.
I THINK IF THE GUY SHOT THE GUN AND THE SHOT SPOT ALERT WAS SO HELPFUL, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CONVICT HIM.
SO, UH, BUT I WILL SAY ABSOLUTELY THERE ARE CASES WHERE GOOD THINGS HAPPEN WHEN YOU SEND POLICE OUT, BUT I DON'T THINK FINDING A GUN THAT WASN'T FIRED, I, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A, I THINK THAT'S MORE LIKELY TO BE A COINCIDENCE THAN ANYTHING.
AND I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IF THE SHOT SPOT ALERTS WERE SO HELPFUL, WHY NOT? WHY WEREN'T THEY ABLE TO GET THE PERSON WHO SHOT THE GUN AND EITHER ONE OF THESE CASES? OKAY, THANK YOU.
UM, JUST A SORT OF GENERAL QUESTION THROUGH YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, 'CAUSE SOME QUESTIONS WERE BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE FUNDING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR LEGAL, UM, THE SOLICITOR OR NOT.
UM, BECAUSE THE QUESTIONS WERE BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE FUNDING AND WHERE THE FUNDING COMES FROM AND USING THAT FUNDING FOR OTHER THINGS.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS IS FUNDING, THIS IS GRANT FUNDING SPECIFICALLY.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE COULD TAKE THIS MONEY AND USE IT FOR SOMETHING ELSE.
[02:05:01]
UH, THANK YOU.THE, UM, BOSTON REGIONAL, I'M NOT GONNA GET IT RIGHT.
NOPE, IT'S NOT BRICK BRICK IS A SEPARATE, BUT THE, THE BOSTON REGIONAL MET METRO REGIONAL URBAN AREA URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE RECEIVES FEDERAL UWA E GRANTS, WHICH ARE URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE GRANTS AND THE, UH, BOSTON AREA REGIONAL BODY, UM, WHICH HAS REPRESENTATION BY ALL FIVE COMMUNITIES, INCLUDING CAMBRIDGE.
THEN FIGURES OUT, UH, MAKES DECISIONS ON WHAT TYPES OF TECHNOLOGY OR, UM, OTHER TOOLS THAT THEY WANT TO PURCHASE TO USE AS A REGIONAL EFFORT FOR SECURITY MEASURES.
AND SO, UM, THIS ISN'T MONEY THAT CAMBRIDGE SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE FOR OTHER PROGRAMS WITHIN CAMBRIDGE, BUT IF THE GROUP WASN'T USING THE U OSSI FUNDS FOR SHOT SPOTTER, IT COULD USE THOSE FUNDS FOR SOME OTHER TYPE OF SECURITY INITIATIVE.
SO IF, BUT SO NOW WE'RE PART OF THIS LARGER THING.
IF WE DECIDED WE DIDN'T WANT TO USE SHOTSPOTTER ANYMORE, UM, WE CAN DO THAT.
RIGHT? WE CAN OPT OUT OF IT EVEN THOUGH WE'RE PART OF THIS LARGER.
AND WHO MAKES THAT DECISION? BECAUSE WE COULD, WE'VE CERTAINLY HAD INCIDENTS WHERE THE COUNCIL HAS PASSED POLICIES NINE TO NOTHING, AND YET THE AUTHORITY LANDS WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE AND SOMETIMES THEY'VE AGREED WITH US AND FOLLOWED THOSE THAT, THAT NINE TO NOTHING VOTE.
AND SOMETIMES THEY'VE SAID NO.
SO ULTIMATELY, WHO IS GONNA MAKE THIS DECISION? UH, THANK YOU THROUGH YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
SO THIS DECISION DOES FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE CITY MANAGER.
UM, HOWEVER, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS A ROLE BECAUSE AS WE'VE HEARD MENTIONED TODAY, UM, SHOT SPOTTER OR ANY TYPE OF GUN DETECTION TECHNOLOGY FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.
AND IN THE CITY'S SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE, THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE A SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY BEFORE IT'S USED AND THEN CAN ALSO, UM, RESCIND THAT APPROVAL BASED ON, UM, THE CRITERIA THAT WAS OUTLINED PREVIOUSLY.
SO THE, THE COUNCIL HAS A ROLE BECAUSE OF THE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY ORDINANCE, BUT THE CITY MANAGER THROUGH OUR CITY MANAGER FORM OF GOVERNMENT WORKING WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, DETERMINES WHAT TYPE OF TOOLS TO USE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY.
UM, I'LL YIELD, UM, MADAM CHAIR, BUT I, I JUST, ONE LAST THING.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE PREPARED TO DO THIS NOW OR, YOU KNOW, TODAY.
UM, BUT LIKE I SAID, WE'VE HAD THESE, SEVERAL OF THESE MEETINGS AND I THINK IT'S TIME FOR US TO MAKE SOME SORT OF DECISION.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKING REALLY HARD AND ADVOCATING REALLY HARD AND HAVE BEEN HERE MANY, MANY TIMES.
UM, AND WE JUST HAVE THE SAME MEETING OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
AND I THINK, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE PUT FORWARD A MOTION FROM THIS COMMITTEE SAYING THAT THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY NO LONGER USE SHOT SPOTTER AND THEN THAT GOES TO THE FULL CITY COUNCIL FOR A VOTE.
BUT I, I, I DO THINK, I THINK WE OWE IT TO THE PUBLIC TO MAKE SOME SORT OF DECISION.
UM, AND, AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE VOTE WOULD LAND, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S, WE, WE, WE'VE HAD THIS CONVERSATION MANY, MANY TIMES AND I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE ACTION, UM, AS A COUNCIL TO AT LEAST BE OFFICIALLY ON THE RECORD.
WHETHER THE CITY MANAGER FOLLOWS THAT RECOMMENDATION OR NOT.
IT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION AND I'LL YIELD.
YEAH, WE CAN ADDRESS THAT MOMENTARILY.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GO TO COUNCILOR NOLAN.
I WANNA FOLLOW UP ON THIS AND THROUGH YOU TO THE CITY SOLICITOR AND TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE COUNCIL HAS BEEN INVOLVED AND TO EXPLAIN AND CONFIRM THE COUNCIL VOTES, UM, BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE.
AND LIKE IT OR NOT, ASIDE FROM THE 2014 NOTICE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE ACTUALLY HAVE APPROVED SOME OF THIS.
I THINK A FEW YEARS AGO WE REFERRED IT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, BUT THEN IT CAME BACK TO THE COUNCIL.
SO THROUGH YOU, I'D LIKE IF, IF THE CITY SOLICITOR KNOWS HOW THAT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED MUCH MORE RECENTLY.
AND ALSO WHAT I HEARD WAS COUNTER TO WHAT I BELIEVE COUNCILOR MCGOVERN WAS SUGGESTING IS THAT OUR SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE, IF WE SAY WE ARE NOT USING THIS, THE CITY MANAGER CANNOT OVERRIDE THAT.
'CAUSE IT'S NOT A BUDGET QUESTION IT, SO I JUST WANT THAT CONFIRMED.
ONE, HOW IS IT THAT WE HAVE VOTED ON? 'CAUSE I BELIEVE IN FULL DIS, I MEAN, I AM ON THE COUNCIL, I HAVE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT IT, BUT I BELIEVE I, IN ACCEPTING THIS REPORT, I DID VOTE FOR IT AT SOME POINT DURING THE LAST FEW YEARS.
[02:10:01]
WANNA MISLEAD THE PUBLIC TO THINK THAT HAS NOT BEEN INVOLVED, THAT WE MAY BE DISAPPOINTED IN IT, ALTHOUGH IT'S BETTER TO HAVE HAD THAT IF WE HAVE A SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE THAN TO THINK WE DIDN'T EVEN LOOK AT IT SINCE 2014.SO THOSE, IF THOSE ARE TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT IF WE KNOW, HOW CONFIRM WHETHER THE COUNCIL HAS HAD EFFECTIVELY A VOTE THROUGH THE STIRS.
AND IF I'M CORRECT, THAT IF WE DECIDED TO SAY, NO, THIS IS A SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY WE DON'T WANNA USE, THAT WOULD END THE MATTER.
WELL, ACTUALLY, LET ME STEP BACK.
SO IN 2014, THE CITY COUNCIL AT THAT TIME WAS INTERESTED IN USING SHOT SPOTTER AND HAD, UM, PUT IN SOME POLICY ORDER ASKING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPLORE USING SHOTSPOTTER.
AND THEN IN 2015, I BELIEVE, OR MAYBE IT WAS STILL 2014, THE CITY MANAGER REPORTED BACK ON THAT.
AND, UM, IT WAS AROUND THAT TIME, I THINK IN 2015 WHEN SHOTSPOTTER FIRST STARTED TO BE USED.
UM, AND SO THAT WAS A CITY MANAGER DECISION, BUT IT WAS IN RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL INTEREST.
UH, THEN IN 2018, THE CITY COUNCIL AND, AND ORDAINED THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE.
AND SO OVER THE COURSE OF 2019, UM, CITY DEPARTMENTS, UH, SUBMITTED STIRS SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY IMPACT REPORTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ALL OF THE TECHNOLOGY THAT CITY DEPARTMENTS WERE ALREADY USING.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND AS THE COUNCIL COUNSELORS ARE AWARE, THEN SINCE THEN, ANY NEW TECHNOLOGY COMES BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
BUT AT, IN 2019, IT WAS, OKAY, WE NOW HAVE THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE AND WE'VE ALREADY BEEN USING ALL OF THIS TECHNOLOGY, SO NOW WE NEED TO GET IT APPROVED UNDER THE ORDINANCE.
AND SO AT THAT TIME, UM, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD A, YOU KNOW, A LIST OF MULTIPLE SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGIES THEY WANTED APPROVED.
THEY SUBMITTED THE STIRS AND THE COUNCIL APPROVED THEM.
AND SO AT THAT TIME, THAT INCLUDED SHOT SPOTTER.
UM, THE, AND THEN, UH, EVERY YEAR SINCE 20, I'M NOT POSITIVE IF THERE WAS AN ANNUAL REPORT IN 2020, 'CAUSE THAT WAS RIGHT, WHILE EVERYTHING WAS STILL GETTING APPROVED INITIALLY, BUT AT LEAST BY 2021.
AND EVERY YEAR SINCE THEN, UM, PURSUANT TO THE ORDINANCE, DEPARTMENTS HAVE SUBMITTED AN ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE REPORT, UM, WHERE THEY OUTLINE WHAT TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL, ARE THEY STILL USING? AND THEY SUBMIT CERTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT HOW IT'S BEING USED.
AND THEN THE COUNCIL EACH YEAR HAS APPROVED THE ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE, UH, REPORT.
SO, UH, THAT HAS INCLUDED SHOT SPOTTER.
SO NOW I THINK THE COUNCIL HAS TWO WAYS THEY, UM, CAN PLAY A ROLE IN THE CONTINUED USE OF SHOT SPOTTER.
ONE, JUST LIKE IN 2014, THE COUNCIL WAS INTERESTED IN USING SHOTS SPOTTER AND ASKED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPLORE IT.
THE COUNCIL COULD NOW TAKE A VOTE TO SAY WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN USING SHOTS SPOTTER, AND WE'D LIKE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXPLORE NOT USING IT.
UM, THE SECOND PATH THAT'S AVAILABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL IS THROUGH THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE.
SO AS PART OF THE ANNUAL REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED THIS PAST MARCH AND IS STILL PENDING HERE BEFORE THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, UM, THE, THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN THE COUNCIL COULD LOOK AT WHETHER THE BENEFITS, UH, TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMUNITY OUTWEIGH THE FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL COSTS AND WHETHER REASONABLE SAFEGUARDS EXIST TO ADDRESS REASONABLE CONCERNS REGARDING PRIVACY, CIVIL LIBERTIES, AND CIVIL RIGHTS.
UM, SO THAT'S THE CRITERIA THE COUNCIL, THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE, AND THE COUNCIL NEED TO GO THROUGH TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT TO CONTINUE USING TECHNOLOGY.
SO THE, THE COUNCIL HAS THAT PATH ALSO TO SAY, WE NO LONGER THINK SHOT SPOT OR MEETS THIS CRITERIA.
AND SO WE WANNA RESCIND OUR APPROVAL.
AND WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF, I BELIEVE I JUST GOT A NOTICE SAYING, HEY, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STIRS, YOU GOTTA GET THEM IN IMMEDIATELY.
SO I BELIEVE THERE'S A MEETING SET UP AROUND THAT VERY SOON.
I'M LOOKING TO THE CHAIR HERE.
YEAH, THERE'S GONNA BE AN OVERALL ANNUAL SURVEILLANCE HEARING ON MAY 20TH WHERE WE WILL DIS WE CAN CONTINUE DISCUSSING SHOTSPOTTER AND ALSO OTHER ONES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED BY YOU GUYS THAT YOU WOULD WANNA TALK THROUGH.
SO WE, SOMEONE CAN PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW, UM, OR IF YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND FINISH YOUR THOUGHTS.
AND THEN POTENTIALLY BASED ON IF COUNCILOR SIMMONS IS STILL AVAILABLE, WANTS TO SHARE COMMENTS AS WELL.
I, I THINK THAT'S, IT'S REALLY HELPFUL TO HAVE THAT CLARITY THAT THERE'S TWO PATHS.
ONE IS TO GO BACK AND SAY, WE, WE
[02:15:01]
ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME BENEFITS AND YET WE WANNA RESCIND THIS, OR THROUGH THE SURVEILLANCE ORDINANCE WE SAY, THIS NO LONGER MEETS THE NEEDS, AND EITHER IT DOES MEET THE NEEDS AND WE WILL APPROVE THE CONTINUATION, OR IT DOESN'T, AND THEREFORE WE WILL, WILL NOT APPROVE IT, WHICH MEANS IT WILL NOT HAPPEN.THE, UM, I, I THINK I DID HAVE A COUPLE OTHER QUICK I HOPE QUESTIONS.
UM, WHAT WE HEARD WAS THAT SHOTS BUTTER IS ALWAYS ON EVEN IF IT'S NOT ACTIVATED.
SO COULD SOMEONE ADDRESS THAT TECHNICALLY THAT IT'S SIMILAR TO ME SAYING THIS PHONE HERE IS SOMETIMES I THINK IT'S NOT ON, I TURN IT OFF, BUT THEN IT TURNS OUT, YEAH, WE WERE RIGHT.
THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAD CONSPIRACY THEORY, THE NSA ACTUALLY CAN GET THAT INFORMATION.
SO IS IT, IF IT'S ALWAYS ON, WHAT I'M HEARING IS TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
ONE IS IT'S ON, AND IT IS CAPABLE OF RECORDING AND DOES RECORD CONVERSATIONS OR IT'S ON LISTENING, BUT IS NOT RECORDING CONVERSATIONS AND ONLY GETS ACTIVATED AND RECORDS A SHOT.
SO I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DETERMINE THAT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A PRETTY KEY QUESTION.
AND LEMME JUST SAY MY ONE OTHER QUESTION, UM, IS, AND THIS MIGHT BE THROUGH YOU CHAIR TO THE, UM, POLICE IS, I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ADVANTAGES, BUT THE REAL WORLD EXAMPLE, EVEN THE ONE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IF THERE HADN'T BEEN SHOT SPIDER, WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED? THAT'S THE REAL FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.
IT'S NOT WHETHER THERE'S SOME ADVANTAGE.
IT'S IF IT HADN'T BEEN THERE, WHAT WOULD'VE HAPPENED? BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THERE WASN'T A 9 1 1 CALL.
HOWEVER, THERE WAS A TIP 14 MINUTES LATER, AND IN FACT, THE NINE ONE, EVEN THOUGH THE SHOT SPIDER ACTIVATED WITHIN TWO MINUTES, THE PERSON HAD BEEN GONE.
SO I LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, WELL, IT THE SAME OUTCOME WOULD'VE HAPPENED, WHICH IS THE PERSON WOULD'VE BEEN IDENTIFIED, THE NEIGHBORS WOULD'VE UNDERSTOOD.
SO I, I THINK FOR ME, THAT'S THE CENTRAL QUESTION AS WE THINK ABOUT THIS, IS ARE, ARE WE, NONE OF US WANNA PUT OUR COMMUNITY AT RISK.
BUT THE REAL QUESTION TO GRAPPLE WITH IS EVEN IN THE CASES WHERE IT'S BEEN HELPFUL, IF IT HADN'T BEEN THERE, COULD THERE HAVE BEEN A SIMILAR, UM, POSITIVE OUTCOME FOR THE COMMUNITY? UM, I THINK THE DATA OWNERSHIP IS SOMETHING WE'VE ALSO ADDRESSED, BUT, BUT I THINK THAT ALWAYS ON AND IS IT POSSIBLE, EVEN IF RECORDING IS CENTRAL, I'M NOT SURE IF I WENT OVER MY TIME OR IF WE WANNA PUT THIS OFF.
SO YEAH, SO MAYBE WE CAN EXTEND FOR 10 MORE MINUTES IF THAT'S OKAY WITH FOLKS.
CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL ON 10 MORE MINUTES? COUNCILLOR ZUBE? YES.
SO MAYBE WE CAN TURN TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO TRY TO ANSWER SOME OF COUNCILOR NOLAN'S QUESTIONS.
UM, JUST BEFORE I LET, UH, DEPUTY BOYLE DO THAT, JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW THAT, UM, THE DA MARIAN RYAN IS ONLINE.
IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER, UH, THROUGH YOU, MADAM CHAIR, THE ALWAYS ON, UH, IT WOULD BE SIMILAR LIKE A SAY LIKE A SMOKE DETECTOR, YOUR SMOKE DETECTOR'S ON, BUT IT'S NOT GOING OFF, OTHERWISE NOBODY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING.
UM, AND WHEN IT, A GUN FIRE INCIDENT IS RECORDED, THAT'S WHEN WE GET THE ALERT.
UH, WE ONLY GET FOR, UH, AUDIO ONE SECOND BEFORE THE GUNFIRE INCIDENT, THE GUNFIRE INCIDENT.
AS FAR AS THE FACTS FOR THE CASE THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT, THE AUDIO THAT THEY RECORDED WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GUNFIRE INCIDENT.
THERE WAS SHOOTING, TALKING MORE SHOOTING.
SO THAT'S WHY THOSE VOICES WERE RECORDED.
SOUND THINKING AS A RESULT OF THAT, HAD A STUDY DONE BY NYU TO REDUCE DOWN THEIR, UH, SPOOL TIME AND THEIR RECORDING TIME.
SO THE DATA IS ALWAYS OVERWRITTEN EVERY 30 HOURS.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT RECORDED AND SAVED.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? IT ACTUALLY SUGGESTS IT IS RECORDING IF IT'S ONE SECOND BEFORE.
AND, AND THE A AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS, IS I, I THINK THE CENTRAL QUESTION IS IF THAT HADN'T EXISTED, GIVEN THERE WAS A TIP 12 MINUTES LATER, WOULDN'T THE SAME OUTCOME HAVE HAPPENED, WHICH IS A VERY DANGEROUS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INCIDENT, WOULD'VE BEEN CORRECTLY APPREHENDED? I WOULD SAY AS FAR AS THAT GOES, THE THE TIP THAT WE GOT FROM THAT PERSON WAS BECAUSE OF THE POLICE RESPONSE.
DO YOU WANNA GO AHEAD AND ALSO RESPOND? YEAH, THROUGH YOU, MADAM CHAIR.
UM, SO IT'S, IT'S NOT QUITE LIKE A SMOKE ALARM BECAUSE THE SMOKE ALARM ONLY GOES OFF IF IT HEARS SMOKE.
WHAT'S TRICKY ABOUT THESE IS THAT THERE'S TWO THINGS HAPPENING AT ONCE.
ONE IS THAT THE MICROPHONES ARE ALWAYS LISTENING
[02:20:01]
AND ALWAYS RECORDING.AND THE SECOND THING IS HAPPENING IS THAT SOMETIMES THERE'S AN ALERT THAT GOES OFF.
NOW THERE'S A SEPARATE ISSUE ABOUT WHAT DATA CAMBRIDGE POLICE DEPARTMENT RECEIVE, AND THEY MAY ONLY RECEIVE A VERY BRIEF SNIPPET AND NEVER HAVE ACCESS TO CONVERSATIONS.
BUT THE REASON THAT WE KNOW, 'CAUSE SOUND THINKING'S BEEN SO MISLEADING ABOUT THIS, THE REASON WE KNOW THAT CONVERSATIONS ARE ALWAYS BEING RECORDED IS BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN INTRODUCED IN COURT, NOT JUST CONVERSATIONS AFTER A SHOT AND BEFORE ANOTHER SHOT, BUT CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE BEFORE ANY GUNSHOTS THAT WERE HAPPENING.
THEY CAN BE LOOKED UP IN CRIMINAL LEGAL TRIALS AND THEY SHOW THAT THE RECORDING IS HAPPENING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THERE'S BEEN AN ALERT OR NOT.
COUNCILLOR NOLAN JUST SO IF I, JUST SO WE MAY, SO THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE MAY NOT GET, THEY MAY ONLY GET A SECOND BEFORE, A SECOND AFTER, BUT THE COMPANY HAS THAT, WHICH THEN PEOPLE CAN ACCESS.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE MAY NOT GET IT, BUT IT EXISTS THAT THANK YOU FOR THAT'S BUT THROUGH, THROUGH YOU.
UM, BUT THE REASON THAT THEY, THAT THEY, IT'S SAVED FOR 30 HOURS.
SO THEY, SO THAT, AND ANY INVESTIGATION THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE CAN BE DONE IF IT NEEDS TO, AND THEN IT'S REWRITTEN OVER AGAIN.
120 DE DECIBELS IS NOT CONVERSATION COUNCILLOR NOLAN.
SO THAT QUESTION ABOUT THE, WHETHER IT'S ALWAYS ON OR NOT HAS BEEN ACTIVATED.
I THINK, AGAIN, THE QUESTION IS THE REAL WORLD EXAMPLE.
WE MAY NEVER KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITHOUT, ALTHOUGH IT, THE, THE REAL QUESTION IS, IS THE COMMUNITY AWARE ENOUGH THAT SOMETHING WOULD'VE BEEN PUT IN? AND WE, WE, WE DON'T KNOW.
IN THIS INSTANCE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT TIP CAME IN AFTER POLICE PRESENCE, SO WE'LL NEVER KNOW IF THE TIP WOULD'VE COME IN EVEN WITHOUT A POLICE PRESENCE, HAVING BEEN SOMEONE WHO STAFFED A HOTLINE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND WHO HAS WITNESSED IT AND CALLED IT IN MYSELF.
I KNOW THERE'S REAL HESITANCY, AND I ALSO KNOW THAT PEOPLE WILL APPROACH, IF THEY FEEL SAFE, THEY WILL, MIGHT WELL INVESTIGATE.
SO, SO I I I, I DO THINK WE NEED TO, AS COUNCIL MCGOVERN SAID, REALLY ADDRESS THIS.
AND I, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S APPROPRIATE IN THIS OR DEFINITELY SINCE WE'RE COMING UP ALREADY NEXT MONTH WITH, WITH THE STIR, I, I THINK THAT'S THE PLACE TO GO BECAUSE THAT IS IN THE COUNCIL PURVIEW TO SAY, IF WE NO LONGER BELIEVE THAT GIVEN THAT NATIONAL SITUATION, THIS OTHER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE SWIMMING IN A, IN, IN AN ECOSYSTEM THAT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE EVEN FIVE YEARS AGO, MUCH LESS 10 YEARS AGO.
AND JUST TO SQUEEZE IN MY TIME HERE AT THE VERY END, I, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, UH, FOR BOTH I, OUR PANELISTS AND ALSO THE CITY SOLICITOR, JUST GENERALLY ABOUT THE PRIVACY RISKS HERE, CONSIDERING WE ARE A SANCTUARY STATUS CITY.
SO HOW DOES ENTERING A CON INTO A CONTRACT LIKE THIS ONE WITH NO SPECIFIC RESTRICTIONS ON FEDERAL DATA SHARING ALIGN WITH OUR SANCTUARY CITY COMMITMENTS? AND FROM YOUR JUDGMENT, DOES IT ALIGN? SO I'LL GIVE THE CHANCE FOR, I DON'T KNOW IF SOMEONE FROM HERE WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS AND THE CITY SOLICITOR.
UM, I'LL, I'LL JUST COMMENT BRIEFLY FIRST THAT AGAIN, ACTUALLY, IT DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE IS ACTUALLY IN A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP WITH SOUND THINKING.
UM, THE ONLY CONTRACT WE'VE SEEN, AGAIN, IS THE SAMPLE CONTRACT THAT WAS PROPOSED TO THE BOSTON OEM.
SO, UM, YOU, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST REFRAME THAT A LITTLE BIT TO SAY THAT ACTUALLY, UM, WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WE ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY A CONTRACT THAT WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING, UH, THAT WE'RE BOUND BY A CONTRACT THAT WE SAW A SAMPLE OF THREE YEARS AGO.
UM, SO EVEN, WE ACTUALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT TERMS GOVERN THE, GOVERN THE SHARING RIGHT NOW WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE A PROPOSED CO, UH, CONTRACT FROM 2023 THAT SAYS, SO I'M THINKING CAN DO WHATEVER IT WANTS WITH THE DATA.
UM, AND I WOULD SAY PERSONALLY, I'M SPEAKING HERE AS A RESIDENT, NOT AS TBRS COUNCIL.
I DON'T THINK THAT ALIGNS WITH OUR, WITH OUR GOALS AS A SANCTUARY CITY BECAUSE WE ARE ESSENTIALLY CEDING CONTROL TO A PRIVATE ENTITY OVER WHAT IT CHOOSES TO DO WITH THESE RECORDINGS.
AND EVEN IF THEY ONLY EXIST FOR 30 HOURS, THAT'S 30 HOURS IN WHICH THEY COULD BE TRANSFERRED TO SOMEONE WITHOUT CAMBRIDGE'S KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.
DOES THE CITY SOLICITOR, DO YOU WANNA MAKE A REMARK OF GOT ABOUT A MINUTE OR TWO? YEAH, IF YOU DON'T MIND
YOU KNOW, SAY IT DID, UH, RECORD A VOICE.
IT, THERE IS NO WAY OF IDENTIFYING ANYONE YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE IT CAME FROM, THREE DIFFERENT SENSORS.
YOU, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THAT VOICE CAME FROM, WHO IT BELONGS TO, OR IT CAN NOT BE IDENTIFIED AT ALL THROUGH THAT TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY.
UH, THROUGH YOU MADAM CHAIR, IN ORDER TO SHARE DATA, YOU NEED A, UH, USER AGREEMENT BETWEEN
[02:25:01]
THE CUSTOMER BEING US AND WHOEVER WE WANTED TO SHARE WITH, SAY IT WAS, UH, THE BOSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT OR THE WORCESTER POLICE DEPARTMENT, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO SIGNED AGREEMENTS THAT WOULD THEN GO TO SOUND THINKING.AND IT'S ONLY UPON THOSE SIGNED AGREEMENTS WOULD THEY THEN ALLOW US TO SHARE THE DATA.
SOUND THINKING DOESN'T SHARE THE DATA, WE WOULD HAVE TO BE THE ONES TO EXECUTE THAT SIGNED AGREEMENT.
SO I'LL, I'LL TURN TO THE CITY SOLICITOR IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS.
OTHERWISE, I I WANNA CONTINUE INTO THE COMMENTS THAT I HAVE AS WELL.
SO WE HAVE, UM, IT'S BEEN REFERRED TO THE 2023 PROPOSAL, PRICE PROPOSAL, UM, AND THEN I ALSO HAVE A COPY OF BOSTON'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT'S MOST RECENT CONTRACT WITH SOUND THINKING, WHICH IS DATED FROM 2025.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT PRICE PROPOSAL THAT'S MORE RECENTLY DATED THAN THE 20 23 1.
SO I WOULD WANNA TRY TO, UH, FIND OUT IF THAT IS THE CURRENT OPERATIVE, UH, TERMS, BUT THE TERMS IN THAT DOCUMENT DO, UM, GIVE SOUND THINKING OWNER OWNERSHIP OF THE DATA AND GIVE THE, UM, THE PARTIES LIKE CAMBRIDGE, WHO ARE USING THE TECHNOLOGY, UH, LICENSE TO USE THE DATA.
SO WE CAN OBVIOUSLY USE IT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES.
UM, HOWEVER, I BELIEVE SOUND THINKING HAS REPRESENTED TO, UM, THE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT IF THEY EVER RECEIVED A SUBPOENA FOR ANY OF THE DATA, UM, THAT THEY WOULD NOTIFY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ALLOW THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO IN AND TRY TO, UM, IT'S CALLED QUASHING THE SUBPOENA, BUT TRY TO STOP THE SUBPOENA, GET THE COURT TO ORDER THIS, THAT THEY DON'T, WON'T PROVIDE THE DATA IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBPOENA AND SOUND THINKING REPRESENTED THAT THEY ALSO WOULD, UM, TRY TO PREVENT, UH, A SUBPOENA FROM BEING ACTED ON.
YEAH, THAT'S, IT'S, IT'S DEFINITELY HELPFUL TO KNOW THAT.
AND I, I KNOW A QUICK FOLLOW UP QUESTION THAT I'D HAVE TO, IT IS NOT NECESSARILY, IT'S NOT WHO DOES SHOT SPOTTER SHARE DATA WITH, BUT WHO CAN SHOT SPOTTER SHARE DATA WITH? AND AS A SANCTUARY CITY, I FEEL LIKE THAT MATTERS FROM MY PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE THERE'S ALMOST FOUR ENTITIES THAT I SEE AT PLAY HERE.
THERE'S LIKE A PSEUDO ENTITY, WHICH IS THE CITY OF BOSTON, THEN THERE'S THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, THERE'S SOUND THINKING, AND THEN THERE'S THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS FUNDING ALL OF THIS AT THE END OF THE DAY.
AND I SEE AS THE CONTRACTS, AS THE CITY OWNS THE DATA, BUT IN PRACTICE, THE SYSTEM IS OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THIS PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY, WHICH DETERMINES HOW THAT DATA IS COLLECTED AND SHARED WITH THE POLICE, WHICH I, WE HEARD FROM A SOUND THINKING REPRESENTATIVE LAST YEAR, UM, THAT THEY'RE GIVING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ONE SECOND BEFORE AND AFTER.
SO THEY OPERATE THAT DATA AT THE VERY END OF THE DAY.
UH, I MEAN, ON TOP OF THAT, THE PROGRAM IS SUPPORTED BY FEDERAL FUNDING, WHICH JUST MAY BRING ADDITIONAL REPORTING OR ACCESS REQUIREMENTS THAT EXIST OUTSIDE OF US.
AND I, THAT JUST MAKES ME WONDER, LIKE IS THIS JUST THE LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY TOOL OR IS IT PART OF A LARGER SYSTEM WITH UNCLEAR DATA GOVERNANCE? UH, THE OBSCURITY IS HONESTLY A MAJOR RED FLAG FOR ME, AND SO MUCH SO THAT ARE CONGRESSIONAL REPS LIKE SENATOR WARREN, SENATOR MARKEY, AND REPRESENTATIVE PRESLEY HAVE ALREADY RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT WHETHER THAT FUNDING IS APPROPRIATE ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL AND WHETHER IT COULD RAISE CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUES.
I THINK THAT'S RELEVANT GIVEN THIS TECHNOLOGY'S POTENTIALLY PRIMARILY DEPLOYED DISPROPORTIONATELY IN BLACK AND BROWN NEIGHBORHOODS IN OUR CITY.
AND WE'VE SEEN THAT BE THE CASE IN ACROSS THE UNI UNITED STATES IN, IN CITIES LIKE CHICAGO AND BOSTON.
AND I, I THINK SIMILAR TO WHAT SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES HAVE BROUGHT UP, LIKE WE'RE NOT SEEING A CONSISTENTLY GOOD RATE THAT IT'S GIVING US FOR SUPPORTING OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.
SO PART OF WHAT I'M HOLDING IS, IS THIS REALLY JUSTIFYING OUR CONTINUED USE.
THERE'S DEFINITELY A LOT TO HOLD HERE AND TO DIGEST, AND I REALLY HOPE THAT MY COLLEAGUE, COLLEAGUES CONTINUE TO ASK QUESTIONS AND DIGEST THAT WITH ME.
AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S PARTICIPATION IN THIS HEARING, UM, AND FOR OUR PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL.
UM, AND WITH THAT, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND BY COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AND DO A ROLL CALL.
ABSENT COUNCILOR SABRINA WHEELER.