undefined | Better HN

0 pointssplintercell2y ago0 comments

What's the problem with false positives in this case?

I'm pretty sure, "don't bother with this technology which reports shots to the cops, because it has false positives" is a very weak argument.

0 comments

sokoloff2y ago

If the false positive rate is 5%, it’s probably not much of a problem in terms of the overall balance of effectiveness.

If the false positive rate is 95%, it’s pretty obviously going to be a diversion of police resources from whatever else they could be doing if not responding to zero-value alerts.

fasthands92y ago

https://www.edgewortheconomics.com/experience-independent-au...

This claims the false positive rate is under 3%. It's based on Shotspotter's statistics and "independent audit" statistics.

Not sure how trustworthy either is, but without better stats from anywhere else I have no reason to doubt the claim the false positive is pretty low.

Seems like even if false positive rate was at 50% it wouldn't be that big of a deal. Cities have police on patrol at all times anyway - it would just mean sending someone to drive 5 minutes away to see if there is visible a disturbance instead of them driving around the area they were currently randomly patrolling.

enobrev2y ago

If police show up to your family residence with guns drawn for a false positive, you might have a different perspective.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse