Chicago's contract with ShotSpotter - a crime-fighting tech system plagued by controversy - has left the city grappling with the consequences of its own mistake. In 2023, a freelance journalist submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for data on the gunshot-detection system's effects on police response times, only to be denied and forwarded a letter from ShotSpotter's parent company stating that CPD had no right to share the data.
The error, however, ended up doing Chicago a favor. It inadvertently sparked a public debate about surveillance technology and its use in policing, highlighting the need for greater transparency and accountability. The contract with ShotSpotter explicitly states that "City Data is the property of the City and Gunfire Data is the property of the Contractor," but this language has been criticized as allowing vendors to claim ownership of the data generated by their systems.
As Chicago reconsiders its approach to technology procurement, the city faces a critical juncture. Companies seeking contracts for artificial intelligence-driven analytics are pushing for privatization agreements that shift all risk to local governments. This can lead to technologies being used for political repression and persecution.
To avoid such outcomes, Chicago needs to rethink its procurement system. A "smart procurement" process is needed, one that treats data and algorithms as matters of public governance, not private property. This could involve making clear that data collected by surveillance or AI technology belongs to the city and its residents, rather than vendors.
Furthermore, the city should require an algorithmic impact assessment before any purchase, similar to environmental reviews for construction projects. This would help identify potential biases and safeguards in place to mitigate harm. Additionally, contractual arrangements should be revised to share liability with tech firms for mistakes made by their systems.
The ShotSpotter saga serves as a wake-up call for Chicago's approach to technology procurement. By prioritizing transparency and accountability, the city can ensure that AI technologies are used in ways that benefit its communities, rather than perpetuate harm. As one expert notes, "without public ownership, there is no transparency," making this crucial step towards a more equitable future.
The error, however, ended up doing Chicago a favor. It inadvertently sparked a public debate about surveillance technology and its use in policing, highlighting the need for greater transparency and accountability. The contract with ShotSpotter explicitly states that "City Data is the property of the City and Gunfire Data is the property of the Contractor," but this language has been criticized as allowing vendors to claim ownership of the data generated by their systems.
As Chicago reconsiders its approach to technology procurement, the city faces a critical juncture. Companies seeking contracts for artificial intelligence-driven analytics are pushing for privatization agreements that shift all risk to local governments. This can lead to technologies being used for political repression and persecution.
To avoid such outcomes, Chicago needs to rethink its procurement system. A "smart procurement" process is needed, one that treats data and algorithms as matters of public governance, not private property. This could involve making clear that data collected by surveillance or AI technology belongs to the city and its residents, rather than vendors.
Furthermore, the city should require an algorithmic impact assessment before any purchase, similar to environmental reviews for construction projects. This would help identify potential biases and safeguards in place to mitigate harm. Additionally, contractual arrangements should be revised to share liability with tech firms for mistakes made by their systems.
The ShotSpotter saga serves as a wake-up call for Chicago's approach to technology procurement. By prioritizing transparency and accountability, the city can ensure that AI technologies are used in ways that benefit its communities, rather than perpetuate harm. As one expert notes, "without public ownership, there is no transparency," making this crucial step towards a more equitable future.
. It's crazy that some firms are pushing for privatization agreements that let them claim ownership of data collected by their systems - what a recipe for disaster! 
. And making clear that data collected by surveillance or AI technology belongs to the city and its residents could really help prevent situations like this from happening again.
And having contractual arrangements that share liability with tech firms for mistakes made by their systems would give cities some much-needed protection. It's time to prioritize transparency and accountability when it comes to AI technologies, or else they'll just be used to perpetuate harm 
... can u believe Chicago got lucky when they got denied access to ShotSpotter's data 
? Now it's forcing them 2 re-evaluate their tech procurement process 
! They need 2 prioritize public ownership & transparency, like making data belong 2 the city & its residents 
. This way, AI techs won't be used 4 political repression 
. And liability should b shared with tech firms, so they can't just say "it's on u" when their systems go wrong 
. This is all about making AI work 4 the people, not against them 
!
. maybe chicago can learn from cities that have already implemented smart contracts and liability-sharing arrangements... fyi, it's not rocket science 
I mean, if companies can just claim ownership of our data and use it for their own gain, doesn't that sound like a recipe for disaster? It's all about perspective - are algorithms and surveillance tech really neutral tools, or do they hold power over us?
they literally gave the thumbs up to a tech system that's been plagued by controversy and now they're scrambling to figure out how to do better next time 
it's like they forgot that data ain't no private property, fam 
and prioritizing transparency and accountability 
it's time for them to treat data like public governance, not private property 
it's time for chicago to take a proactive approach to tech procurement and not just react after things go wrong 
. It's all about being clear on who owns the data and making sure everyone's held accountable for how it's used 
. It's kinda cool that the journalist got the city all riled up about it, but at the same time, we gotta be careful about how this stuff is used 
.
. We gotta make sure we're not letting tech firms dictate what happens in our communities 
. We gotta keep pushing for transparency and accountability in our schools too 
. It's time to make sure AI is used to benefit everyone, not just a select few 
.
and having algorithmic impact assessments before buying anything is a total no-brainer 
anyway, fingers crossed chicago gets this right and creates a more transparent future 
. This means making it clear that our data is public property, not private property. And those algorithmic impact assessments? A total game-changer 
.
.
, ShotSpotter was always gonna be a controversy magnet due to its invasive tech, and now we see the city trying to wriggle out of that mess. The issue here isn't just about Chicago's procurement process, but how this whole surveillance state thing is affecting our communities 
.
. Companies are gonna try to screw us over if they think they can get away with it. We need a new way of doing things, one that puts the city's interests first instead of just lining the pockets of these corporate giants 
. We need to treat this stuff like public governance, not something that can be bought and sold at will 
.
it's gotta be about prioritizing transparency and accountability, especially when it comes to data and algorithms. we need to make sure that our cities are using tech in ways that uplift and empower communities, not just profit from them 
wouldn't that be amazing?
. I mean, what's next? Selling your air quality data to the highest bidder? No thanks 
. And those algorithmic impact assessments should be mandatory, like environmental reviews for construction projects 
.
. If the city can't even trust its own tech vendors, how are they supposed to make decisions that benefit the community? The ShotSpotter debacle is a wake-up call for sure 
. Chicago needs to get their act together and prioritize public good over corporate interests 
.
. The ShotSpotter debacle actually made me think about how we, as a society, should be handling all this AI tech. I mean, our cities are basically being sold data and algorithms to private companies 
. We can do better than this 
. The city needs to get smart about tech procurement ASAP, before all this ends up in a real-life sci-fi movie 
️.