Heard on the Street? Our Voices, Apparently

“Don’t eavesdrop on others – you may hear your servant curse you.”
​
- Ecclesiastes 7:21

Image via https://www.flocksafety.com/

​Flock Safety is a frequent PPSA subject (this is our tenth article on the company). But instead of the company’s license-plate reader cameras, today’s discussion was inspired by Flock’s listening device, Raven.

According to Ben Miller of Government Technology, Raven was developed to detect gunshots and other crime-related noises, then activate nearby Flock Falcon cameras and alert authorities. Flock began marketing the Raven-Falcon combo to schools in 2023. The camera integration is meant to be Raven’s primary selling point, giving law enforcement immediate alerts about gunshots, breaking glass, screeching tires, and whatever it's programmed to listen for.

Funny thing – it can also listen for human voices.

Matthew Gauriglia of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reports that Flock has been touting Raven’s ability to detect screaming and other forms of vocal distress. The obvious implication, of course, is the product’s ability to “listen” and record human speech. Raven competitor ShotSpotter proved it could be done when its system recorded the words of a dying man in 2014.

Critics, meanwhile, challenge the notion that technology like Raven and ShotSpotter are good listeners – or even solid policing strategy. ShotSpotter published its own study claiming nearly 97 percent accuracy, though that level required six well-placed (and expensive) sensors in a given area.

Public research tells a different story. Chicago’s Inspector General was highly critical of the technology, finding that “alerts rarely produce evidence of a gun-related crime.” Instead, its use increased stop-and-frisk tactics due to officers’ changed perceptions of the areas where the sensors were deployed. It was deemed not to be worth the $33 million the city had paid for the contract.

Northwestern University’s MacArthur Justice Center published the most comprehensive set of findings to date – claiming that “on an average day, ShotSpotter sends police into these communities [mostly of color] more than 61 times looking for gunfire in vain.” Meanwhile, a National Institute of Justice report last year essentially concluded the technology brought little in terms of meaningful impacts on policing and crime reduction.

And now Raven is joining the audio sensor party, which, as parties go, is turning out to be a veritable Fyre Festival of public safety based on the combined testimony of multiple watchdog groups. In addition to those noted above, the list of audio sensor detractors includes the ACLU, Surveillance Technology Oversight Project, and Electronic Privacy Information Center. We also recommend EFF’s summary of the entire audio sensor industry.

Yet law enforcement continues to hail these too-good-to-be-true, quick-fix “solutions” to public safety challenges, potentially wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and eschewing much-needed transparency. The boosterism continues, despite concerns raised by the communities this technology purports to protect.
​
Audio-sensing tech capable of being deployed at scale nearly completes the mass surveillance infrastructure needed to destroy our privacy once and for all. After all, it is not a great leap for government to go from listening for screams to eavesdropping on private conversations.

DONATE & HELP US PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS