2253 stories

“This neighborhood was built on certain principles, and it’s extremely important to maintain those principles and also not say them out loud where they could be used in court”

1 Share

This McSweeney’s satire of NIMBYs is as vicious as it outta be:

When I heard our town was considering legalizing (gulp) duplex apartments to allow more housing, I was devastated. I’m not against people having homes, but building more housing here would ruin the beautiful character of this neighborhood, which is mostly systematic racism, but it’s also not admitting it’s systematic racism.

Allowing more housing would radically disrupt what this town is, a quaint little neighborhood of half a million people located in one of the most desirable locations in the country. It’s a perfect place. I haven’t changed since 1974, so why should my neighborhood?

This neighborhood was built on certain principles, and it’s extremely important to maintain those principles and also not say them out loud where they could be used in court.

I’ve lived on this same street for thirty-six years, so I think I have a good view of the world. There is nothing wrong with drawing a big red line in the sand or on the nicer side of the highway.

We have all the good folks we need in this neighborhood. It’s not wrong to want a certain “type” of person who has a set of “morals” and is a “contributing” resident, and it’s not like it’s illegal to say these things (I consulted my attorney).

Why do people have to be so pushy about changing my way of life? Can’t these people go somewhere else and stop getting angry when I call them “these people?”

If certain types of characters really want to change things, they should do it the right way. Show up to a Community Board Meeting on the third Tuesday of semi-alternating months at 3:16 PM EST (Estonian Standard Time) and simply wait four and a half hours to make a two-minute statement. It’s that easy. I’ve been doing it for three decades, and I think things are going great.

Inject it straight into my veins!

Leftism and NIMBYism (and related concepts like LOCAL CONTROL and incredibly broad “preservationist” vetoes that are defensible in theory and in practice tend to be used to protect Burger Kings built during the Carter administration from being replaced with multifamily housing) is a circle that just can’t be squared, and using the word “developers” cannot get you around the indefensibility of considering the property values and arbitrary aesthetic preferences of incumbent homeowners as the only meaningful interest.

Read the whole story
9 hours ago
Share this story

The Truman Show, Director’s Cut

1 Share

For those of you who just can’t get enough of the story of how Harry Truman entered the White House with a modest net worth, and then left with a huge fortune, in no small part because he — how shall I put this — misappropriated? embezzled? stole? the 2021 equivalent of millions of dollars of government money, and then went on to make many millions more by exploiting his status as an ex-president, and then told a bunch of really brazen lies to Congress and the American people about the only reason he wasn’t on welfare was because he inherited the family farm (which he didn’t inherit, but rather bought back from friends at friend prices and then turned around and sold at a massive profit), all of which resulted in the passage of the Former Presidents Act, which gives millions of dollars a year in benefits to the extremely wealthy men who are ex-presidents of the United States, including Donald Trump, who if past is prologue is going to exploit the hell out of that law by for example charging taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars per year so that he can “rent” “office space” inside Mar-a-Lago, this article tells the whole story in exquisite and possibly excruciating detail.

BTW I’m having a really hard time getting any law review to even consider publishing this thing, which is really . . . odd. In thirty-plus years in legal academia I’ve never encountered so much resistance when I’ve cast my rhetorical pearls before student law review editors before, even when those pearls consisted of telling them they were getting ripped off big time by the institutions they were attending at such exorbitant cost. But there’s something about this piece that has scared everybody off, so far anyway.

Side note: Some of the rationalizations in the comments when I posted my New York Magazine piece on this were doozies. My favorite was that owning five million dollars in farmland doesn’t really make you wealthy, even though the reason that farmland is worth five million dollars is because it can be sold off to commercial developers in a New York minute. (There’s this weird trope in American culture about how being a rich farmer is somehow not the same as just being rich, period, not that Truman was actually a farmer at any point after he came back from the Great War).

Anyway, as an amuse bouche for anyone inclined to gorge themselves further on the fruits of my personal obsession of the moment, here’s Harry Truman’s annual income in the years immediately after he left the White House, when he was shilling so hard for a pension. (Relative income is calculated by comparing his income to the 95th percentile of family income in that year, and then adjusting that figure in terms of the 95th percentile in 2019, i.e., $304,154.)


Nominal Dollars: $34,177

2021 Dollars:   $343,294

Relative Income:  $1,018,913


Nominal Dollars: $13,565

2021 Dollars: $135,748

Relative Income: $395,399


Nominal Dollars: $141,413

2021 Dollars: $1,425,756

Relative Income: $4,057,401


Nominal Dollars: $121,543

2021 Dollars: $1,202,896

Relative Income: $3,239,229


Nominal Dollars: $139,140

2021 Dollars:  $1,332,946

Relative Income: $3,680,251


Nominal Dollars: $137,085

2021 Dollars:  $1,276,906

Relative Income: $3,473,427


Nominal Dollars: $169,502

2021 Dollars: $1,568,010

Relative Income: $4,026,986

Read the whole story
2 days ago
Share this story

Why Toyota supported seditionists


Toyota’s now-rescinded (for how long we’ll see) decision to support members of Congress who voted to make Trump dictator for life was sort of a compound evil. Because it made a bad bet on hydrogen technology and is facing the likelihood that GM and the other carmakers ahead of them in electric technology will do to Toyota what Toyota did to them in the 70s and 80s, it is now an active collaborator with climate deniaists:

But in recent months, Toyota, one of the world’s largest automakers, has quietly become the industry’s strongest voice opposing an all-out transition to electric vehicles — which proponents say is critical to fighting climate change.

Last month, Chris Reynolds, a senior executive who oversees government affairs for the company, traveled to Washington for closed-door meetings with congressional staff members and outlined Toyota’s opposition to an aggressive transition to all-electric cars. He argued that gas-electric hybrids like the Prius and hydrogen-powered cars should play a bigger role, according to four people familiar with the talks.

Behind that position is a business quandary: Even as other automakers have embraced electric cars, Toyota bet its future on the development of hydrogen fuel cells — a costlier technology that has fallen far behind electric batteries — with greater use of hybrids in the near term. That means a rapid shift from gasoline to electric on the roads could be devastating for the company’s market share and bottom line.

The recent push in Washington follows Toyota’s worldwide efforts — in markets including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union and Australia — to oppose stricter car emissions standards or fight electric vehicle mandates. For example, executives at Toyota’s Indian subsidiary publicly criticized India’s target for 100 percent electric vehicle sales by 2030, saying it was not practical.

Together with other automakers, Toyota also sided with the Trump administration in a battle with California over the Clean Air Act and sued Mexico over fuel efficiency rules. In Japan, Toyota officials argued against carbon taxes.

“Toyota has gone from a leading position to an industry laggard” in clean-car policy even as other automakers push ahead with ambitious electric vehicle plans, said Danny Magill, an analyst at InfluenceMap, a London-based think tank that tracks corporate climate lobbying. InfluenceMap gives Toyota a “D-” grade, the worst among automakers, saying it exerts policy influence to undermine public climate goals.

Particularly disappointing from the inventor of the Prius.

Read the whole story
3 days ago
Washington, DC
3 days ago
Share this story

Pasco Sheriff’s Office letter targets residents for ‘increased accountability’

1 Comment and 3 Shares
Read the whole story
4 days ago
4 days ago
Washington, DC
Share this story
1 public comment
4 days ago
Pre-crime units: a reality from predictive programming.
Space City, USA

Police Are Telling ShotSpotter to Alter Evidence From Gunshot-Detecting AI

1 Comment and 3 Shares

On May 31 last year, 25-year-old Safarain Herring was shot in the head and dropped off at St. Bernard Hospital in Chicago by a man named Michael Williams. He died two days later. 

Chicago police eventually arrested the 64-year-old Williams and charged him with murder (Williams maintains that Herring was hit in a drive-by shooting). A key piece of evidence in the case is video surveillance footage showing Williams’ car stopped on the 6300 block of South Stony Island Avenue at 11:46 p.m.—the time and location where police say they know Herring was shot.

How did they know that’s where the shooting happened? Police said ShotSpotter, a surveillance system that uses hidden microphone sensors to detect the sound and location of gunshots, generated an alert for that time and place.

Except that’s not entirely true, according to recent court filings. 

That night, 19 ShotSpotter sensors detected a percussive sound at 11:46 p.m. and determined the location to be 5700 South Lake Shore Drive—a mile away from the site where prosecutors say Williams committed the murder, according to a motion filed by Williams’ public defender. The company’s algorithms initially classified the sound as a firework. That weekend had seen widespread protests in Chicago in response to George Floyd’s murder, and some of those protesting lit fireworks.

But after the 11:46 p.m. alert came in, a ShotSpotter analyst manually overrode the algorithms and “reclassified” the sound as a gunshot. Then, months later and after “post-processing,” another ShotSpotter analyst changed the alert’s coordinates to a location on South Stony Island Drive near where Williams’ car was seen on camera.

Williams reclassified photo
A screenshot of the ShotSpotter alert from 11:46 PM, May 31, 2020 showing that the sound was manually reclassified from a firecracker to a gunshot.

“Through this human-involved method, the ShotSpotter output in this case was dramatically transformed from data that did not support criminal charges of any kind to data that now forms the centerpiece of the prosecution’s murder case against Mr. Williams,” the public defender wrote in the motion.

The document is what’s known as a Frye motion—a request for a judge to examine and rule on whether a particular forensic method is scientifically valid enough to be entered as evidence. Rather than defend ShotSpotter’s technology and its employees' actions in a Frye hearing, the prosecutors withdrew all ShotSpotter evidence against Williams. 

The case isn’t an anomaly, and the pattern it represents could have huge ramifications for ShotSpotter in Chicago, where the technology generates an average of 21,000 alerts each year. The technology is also currently in use in more than 100 cities.

Motherboard’s review of court documents from the Williams case and other trials in Chicago and New York State, including testimony from ShotSpotter’s favored expert witness, suggests that the company’s analysts frequently modify alerts at the request of police departments—some of which appear to be grasping for evidence that supports their narrative of events.

Untested evidence

Had the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office not withdrawn the evidence in the Williams case, it would likely have become the first time an Illinois court formally examined the science and source code behind ShotSpotter, Jonathan Manes, an attorney at the MacArthur Justice Center, told Motherboard.

“Rather than defend the evidence, [prosecutors] just ran away from it,” he said. “Right now, nobody outside of ShotSpotter has ever been able to look under the hood and audit this technology. We wouldn’t let forensic crime labs use a DNA test that hadn’t been vetted and audited.”

Sam Klepper, senior vice president for marketing and product strategy at ShotSpotter, told Motherboard in an email that the company has no reason to believe the prosecutor’s decision reflects a lack of faith in its technology.

ShotSpotter evidence and employee testimony has been admitted in 190 court cases, he wrote. “Whether ShotSpotter evidence is relevant to a case is a matter left to the discretion of a prosecutor and counsel for a defendant … ShotSpotter has no reason to believe that these decisions are based on a judgment about the ShotSpotter technology,” he said.

The Chicago Police Department, Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s office, and Alderman Chris Taliaferro, who chairs the city council’s public safety committee, did not respond to interview requests or questions.

A pattern of alterations

In 2016, Rochester, New York, police looking for a suspicious vehicle stopped the wrong car and shot the passenger, Silvon Simmons, in the back three times. They charged him with firing first at officers.

The only evidence against Simmons came from ShotSpotter. Initially, the company’s sensors didn’t detect any gunshots, and the algorithms ruled that the sounds came from helicopter rotors. After Rochester police contacted ShotSpotter, an analyst ruled that there had been four gunshots—the number of times police fired at Simmons, missing once.

Paul Greene, ShotSpotter’s expert witness and an employee of the company, testified at Simmons’ trial that “subsequently he was asked by the Rochester Police Department to essentially search and see if there were more shots fired than ShotSpotter picked up,” according to a civil lawsuit Simmons has filed against the city and the company. Greene found a fifth shot, despite there being no physical evidence at the scene that Simmons had fired. Rochester police had also refused his multiple requests for them to test his hands and clothing for gunshot residue.

Curiously, the ShotSpotter audio files that were the only evidence of the phantom fifth shot have disappeared. 

Both the company and the Rochester Police Department “lost, deleted and/or destroyed the spool and/or other information containing sounds pertaining to the officer-involved shooting,” according to Simmons’ civil suit. “Greene acknowledged at plaintiff’s criminal trial that employees of ShotSpotter and law enforcement customers with an audio editor can alter any audio file that’s not been locked or encrypted.” 

A jury ultimately acquitted Simmons of attempted murder and a judge overturned his conviction for possession of a gun, citing ShotSpotter’s unreliability.

Simmons court excerpt
Excerpt from Silvon Simmons civil lawsuit against ShotSpotter and the Rochester Police Department.

Greene—who has testified as a government witness in dozens of criminal trials—was involved in another altered report in Chicago, in 2018, when Ernesto Godinez, then 27, was charged with shooting a federal agent in the city. 

The evidence against him included a report from ShotSpotter stating that seven shots had been fired at the scene, including five from the vicinity of a doorway where video surveillance showed Godinez to be standing and near where shell casings were later found. The video surveillance did not show any muzzle flashes from the doorway, and the shell casings could not be matched to the bullets that hit the agent, according to court records.

During the trial, Greene testified under cross-examination that the initial ShotSpotter alert only indicated two gunshots (those fired by an officer in response to the original shooting). But after Chicago police contacted ShotSpotter, Greene re-analyzed the audio files.

“An hour or so after the incident occurred, we were contacted by Chicago PD and asked to search for—essentially, search for additional audio clips. And this does happen on a semi-regular basis with all of our customers,” Greene told the court, according to a transcript of the trial. He later ruled that there were five additional gunshots that the company’s algorithms did not pick up.

Greene also acknowledged at trial that “we freely admit that anything and everything in the environment can affect location and detection accuracy.”

Paul Greene testimony screenshot
Excerpt from the transcript of Paul Greene's expert witness testimony during the trial of Ernesto Godinez.

ShotSpotter analysts “agree with the machine classification over 90% of the time,” Klepper, from ShotSpotter, wrote to Motherboard. “In a tiny number of cases, our customers request us to perform a location analysis to validate the accuracy of the location. If we find an error, we provide a more accurate location to the customer to assist the investigation.” 

Prior to the trial, the judge ruled that Godinez could not contest ShotSpotter’s accuracy or Greene’s qualifications as an expert witness. Godinez has appealed the conviction, in large part due to that ruling.

“The reliability of their technology has never been challenged in court and nobody is doing anything about it,” Gal Pissetzky, Godinez’s attorney, told Motherboard. “Chicago is paying millions of dollars for their technology and then, in a way, preventing anybody from challenging it.”

The evidence

At the core of the opposition to ShotSpotter is the lack of empirical evidence that it works—in terms of both its sensor accuracy and the system’s overall effect on gun crime. 

The company has not allowed any independent testing of its algorithms, and there’s evidence that the claims it makes in marketing materials about accuracy may not be entirely scientific.

Over the years, ShotSpotter’s claims about its accuracy have increased, from 80 percent accurate to 90 percent accurate to 97 percent accurate. According to Greene, those numbers aren’t actually calculated by engineers, though.

“Our guarantee was put together by our sales and marketing department, not our engineers,” Greene told a San Francisco court in 2017. “We need to give them [customers] a number … We have to tell them something. … It’s not perfect. The dot on the map is simply a starting point.”

In May, the MacArthur Justice Center analyzed ShotSpotter data and found that over a 21-month period 89 percent of the alerts the technology generated in Chicago led to no evidence of a gun crime and 86 percent of the alerts led to no evidence a crime had been committed at all.

Klepper disputed those findings to Motherboard, saying that “the data source used to draw their conclusions, on its own, results in an incomplete picture of an incident” because a gun may have been fired even if there is no documented police evidence that it was.

He also said that Greene’s testimony in the San Francisco trial “had nothing to do with the determination of our actual historical accuracy rate. While marketing and sales have appropriate input on our service level guarantees for our contracts, actual accuracy rates are based on detections that we record.”

Meanwhile, a growing body of research suggests that ShotSpotter has not led to any decrease in gun crime in cities where it’s deployed, and several customers have dropped the company, citing too many false alarms and the lack of return on investment.

One recent study of ShotSpotter in St. Louis found that ShotSpotter “has little deterrent impact on gun-related violent crime in St. Louis. [Automated gun detection systems] also do not provide consistent reductions in police response time, nor aid substantially in producing actionable results.”

Klepper contested those and other research findings, saying that “the studies’ conclusions do not reflect what we see.” 

He pointed to a 2021 study by New York University School of Law’s Policing Project that determined that assaults (which include some gun crime) decreased by 30 percent in some districts in St. Louis County after ShotSpotter was installed. The study authors disclosed that ShotSpotter has been providing the Policing Project unrestricted funding since 2018, that ShotSpotter’s CEO sits on the Policing Project’s advisory board, and that ShotSpotter has previously compensated Policing Project researchers.

Chicago pushes back

Chicago is one of the most important cities in ShotSpotter’s portfolio and is increasingly becoming a battleground over its use.

If a court ever agrees to examine the forensic viability of ShotSpotter, or if prosecutors continue to drop the evidence when challenged, it could have massive ramifications. From January 2017 through June 2021, ShotSpotter reported 94,313 gunfire incidents in the city, an average of 20,958 per year, according to data obtained by Motherboard through a public records request. 

Chicago is ShotSpotter’s second biggest client, after New York City, accounting for 13 percent of the company’s revenue during the first quarter of 2021. But Chicago’s $33 million contract with the company is coming to an end and city officials must decide this August whether or not to renew it.

Meanwhile, the city is grappling with new research, a rise in shootings, cases like the Williams and Godinez trials, and tragedies that have prompted renewed criticism of the technology. 

It was a ShotSpotter alert in the early-morning hours of March 29 that dispatched police to a street in Little Village where they eventually shot and killed 13-year-old Adam Toledo, who was unarmed at the time.

That and other recent events have sparked a new campaign by community and civil rights groups in Chicago calling on city officials to drop ShotSpotter.

“These tools are sending more police into Black and Latinx neighborhoods,” Alyx Goodwin, a Chicago organizer with the Action Center on Race and the Economy, one of the groups leading the campaign, told Motherboard. “Every ShotSpotter alert is putting Black and Latinx people at risk of interactions with police. That’s what happened to Adam Toledo.”’

Motherboard recently obtained data demonstrating the stark racial disparity in how Chicago has deployed ShotSpotter. The sensors have been placed almost exclusively in predominantly Black and brown communities, while the white enclaves in the north and northwest of the city have no sensors at all, despite Chicago police data that shows gun crime is spread throughout the city.

Community members say they’ve seen little benefit from the technology in the form of less gun violence—the number of shootings in 2021 is on pace to be the highest in four years—or better interactions with police officers.

“If you had relationships with any of the people on the block, you wouldn’t need the technology, ’cause we could tell you,” Asiaha Butler, president of the Resident Association of Greater Englewood, told Motherboard. Instead, the technology seems to have given police another excuse not to build relationships with residents. When shots ring out in the neighborhood, police may respond faster, but it’s an “over-militarized police presence. You see a lot of them. It’s not a friendly interaction,” she said.

Read the whole story
5 days ago
cops faking evidence to set up innocent people, and probably Keep Kops Kleared from getting arrested.
2 hours ago
Parallel construction is the Kornerstone of our oligarchy.
Share this story

Doctors, nurses and other health groups call for mandatory vaccinations for all health workers - The Washington Post


Story continues below advertisement

Read the whole story
5 days ago
Fire them and remove all licenses. Anything less is criminal.
5 days ago
It’s malpractice not to
Washington, DC
Share this story
Next Page of Stories