ShotSpotter As Violation Of Citizen's Freedom
Larger cities equal more crime, this is a statistic that has been brought people thinking how crime in large could be reduced. In 2018, Toronto acquired the highest homicide rate among major Canadian cities. City council recently proposed their $44-million plan to implement the recently developed acoustic sensor technology designed to help hear and report gunshots much quicker, ShotSpotter. While many people may appraise the potential ShotSpotter brings in quicker police response times and overall reduction to crime, ShotSpotter is not the option Toronto should look to. ShotSpotter should not be implemented in the City of Toronto due to its inaccuracies and unreliability, the privacy concerns that may infringe a person’s right to liberty under Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as infringing an individuals’ right against unreasonable search and seizure under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Implementing technology that can potentially benefit in crime reduction should first be proven effective, through statistics. ShotSpotter has recently been implemented in many cities throughout the United States, with their results not appearing ideal. In 2016, Forbes Media conducted research with seven U.S cities in determining the success that ShotSpotter brought to their cities in reducing crime. In the study conducted, 30-70% of the reports brought through ShotSpotter lead to the local police unable to find any evidence of gunshots. Essentially, this means that nearly half of the potential crimes reported by ShotSpotter are false alarms, which does not look good in terms of credibility for ShotSpotter. This project can backfire for the city, leading to longer response times in actual crimes being reported, an undesirable paradox. In a city as large as Toronto, ineffective technology that claims to help reduce crime may instead be a nuisance for law enforcement.
ShotSpotter, along with any type of video surveillance in a large city will certainly violate the population’s privacy rights, especially those in high crime areas. In Canada, one of the values that Canadians cherish is the freedom to do anything you want. The freedom of liberty is protected under the important Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Reasonable expectations of privacy should not vary in between certain parts of the city. This will undoubtedly cause a rift in the city’s social fabric. The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Section 28, in subsection (2), states that personal information cannot be obtained unless it is deemed “useful” or “necessary”. ShotSpotter would violate the right to not have citizens’ conversations potentially caught submitted as evidence. This is not the first time that privacy concerns have arisen in the City of Toronto. In 2018, Sidewalk Labs, an infrastructure company, planned on building a data-driven neighborhood at Toronto’s waterfront. The project has come under fire by critics for how information will be kept and distributed. Privacy expert, Ann Cavoukian, resigned after the privacy framework she developed could not guarantee people’s privacy rights. In her letter of resignation, she explained, “ I imagined us creating a Smart City of Privacy, as opposed to a Smart City of Surveillance.” If the public opinion of Sidewalk Labs’ project was overall unsatisfactory, ShotSpotter would be falling down the same path. Freedom of liberty and privacy rights are important to many individuals living in this city, both are questionable to be violated under ShotSpotter.
Crimes recorded and reported through the ShotSpotter system will cause many legal problems as many people would likely argue that evidence obtained through ShotSpotter cannot be admitted as evidence. Canadians should always be guaranteed under Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that they are protected against unreasonable search and seizure. Evidence obtained through ShotSpotter could possibly be disputed as an illegal search since it is obtained without a warrant. In the Supreme Court of Canada hearing of case ‘R. v. Grant’, the courts ruled that if evidence obtained unlawfully and admission of said evidence brings the administration of justice into disrepute, then the evidence is deemed inadmissible. The impact of evidence admitted as the result of ShotSpotter would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It would be unfair for police to obtain evidence from ShotSpotter without a warrant, as likely there wouldn’t be any reasonable suspicion to have that area sound monitored. Not only will citizens need to watch what they may say or do on the streets but understand that whatever they may say that is caught on sound can potentially be used as evidence, not only violating Section 7 right to liberty, but also set a very dangerous precedent. ShotSpotter is will not help solve crime, but rather cause more legal issues which will slow down the judicial process.
