Two weeks ago, Cambridge City Council narrowly voted in favor of getting rid of ShotSpotter, a sensor system that records loud sounds that could be gunshots and alerts local police. The vote went against the recommendation of city manager Yi-An Huang and leadership at Cambridge Police Department (CPD), which said the technology has helped police respond quickly to gunfire.
Now, one of the unions representing the officers themselves is weighing in — and is frustrated with council’s decision.
The Cambridge Police Patrol Officers Association (CPPOA) said in a statement it “is deeply disappointed by the City Council’s vote to eliminate the use of ShotSpotter technology in Cambridge. As the union representing nearly 200 police officers sworn to protect and serve this city, we must question the very commitment of the City Council to public safety.”
The statement was sent through Cosmo Macero, a partner at strategic communications firm Seven Letter.
ShotSpotter’s maker, California technology company SoundThinking, has garnered criticism over concerns about its efficacy and data privacy, leading to cities like Chicago and Dayton abandoning the program and Detroit considering the same.
In Cambridge, public commenters raised concerns about ShotSpotter’s ability to record private conversations and SoundThinking’s relationship with the federal government. Cambridge’s ShotSpotter program is funded by a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which is a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Commenters posited this existing relationship means conversations captured by ShotSpotter sensors would be shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, another DHS sub-agency.
The police union dismissed these concerns, stating “There is no credible evidence that ShotSpotter has been used to monitor private conversations or identify individuals. Its purpose is narrow: detect likely gunfire, locate it quickly, and help first responders act faster.”
The letter also invoked last month’s shooting on Memorial Drive and 11 recorded instances in which ShotSpotter was able to identify gunfire when no 911 call was made as reasons for keeping the technology. ShotSpotter did not play a role in the Memorial Drive response, however, as the location of the shooting was outside of the technology’s range. Furthermore, in at least one of the instances where lifesaving aid was administered to someone who had been shot, triggering a ShotSpotter alert, officers had heard the gunfire in person and were already on the way.
“The people of Cambridge deserve public safety decisions that improve emergency response. Unfortunately, the City Council has voted to make it harder for police officers and first responders to know when and where help is urgently needed,” the letter concluded.
Council divisions
The two council members who voted “no” to removing ShotSpotter have continued to be critical of its removal. Councillors E. Denise Simmons and Timothy Flaherty said that the debate around the technology “elevated ideology over facts.” (The vote during May 18th’s meeting was 5-2-2, with Vice Mayor Burhan Azeem and Councillor Cathie Zusy voting “present.”)
“The real question is not whether Cambridge should tolerate unchecked surveillance. It should not,” Simmons and Flaherty wrote in a Boston Globe op-ed. “The question is whether a narrowly focused gunfire-detection system, governed by strict rules and public oversight, can improve emergency response without compromising constitutional rights.”
They also addressed concerns raised by members of the public that ShotSpotter contributes to the over-policing of neighborhoods of color, saying better governance, not removing the technology, was the way to correct biased policing.
The councillors re-affirmed their commitment to strategies that address the root causes of violence, including better housing, mental health, and youth programs. “But those are long-term strategies,” they said. “When shots are fired, the need is immediate.”
Two of the councillors who voted to stop using ShotSpotter, Patty Nolan and Marc McGovern, wrote a letter to the editor in response, arguing in part that “After more than 10 years of ShotSpotter’s deployment, we have seen no proof of its effectiveness or evidence that it makes us safer or improves outcomes.”
A stronger
Please consider making a financial contribution to maintain, expand and improve Cambridge Day.
We are now a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and all donations are tax deductible.
Please consider a recurring contribution.