
AI Is Getting Better at Detecting Handguns - mcspecter
http://www.vocativ.com/415937/ai-detecting-handguns/
======
bajsejohannes
> what if police officers were equipped with body cameras that could alert
> them the instant they come into view of a handgun, or some other weapon?

And then

> Overall, the optimized model achieved 84% accuracy, with zero false
> negatives [...] and 57 false positives.

So in the what-if scenario above, 16% of cases would falsely escalate a
situation dramatically? Seems like a horrible idea. And "really good" seems
like a stretch.

~~~
burkaman
That number should be compared to the rate human officers unnecessarily
escalate a situation because they think there's a gun. I don't know that
number but it could easily be higher than 16%.

~~~
wayn3
It should really be compared to the number of instances human officer's act as
if there could be a gun " just in case ". Like in a traffic stop.

If officer's don't have to potentially gun someone down because they made a
hectic movement 84% of the time, that's a pretty big win.

Imagine 84% of " black guy mysteriously died" actually led to convictions of
officers because their ai thing told them "definitely no gun, bro"

~~~
dragonwriter
> Imagine 84% of " black guy mysteriously died" actually led to convictions of
> officers because their ai thing told them "definitely no gun, bro"

I imagine that, like body cameras, the AI thing will, in those events,
conveniently be deactivated, malfunctioning, misplaced, or have it's records
lost.

~~~
wayn3
probably. but you can only pull that stunt so many times.

~~~
dragonwriter
> probably. but you can only pull that stunt so many times.

How many? Because apparently we haven't yet reached it with body cams.

~~~
wayn3
Until you've produced a sample. Then some statistician can write a paper on it
and someone takes it to the supreme court and 20 years later they will decide
that there was probably something fishy going on.

Like I know?

But if you compound different systems, like the ai handgun thing and dont
store the data in the same place, it becomes exponentially less likely that
suddenly 2 critical systems failed at the same important moment for some
reason.

the real issue with police brutality is the fact that it is, in fact, legal,
and police is trained to respond in such a way. what protesters get wrong
about police brutality is that its supposedly illegal. it is not. most
instances of police killing someone are actually legal. which doesn't make it
right. but its legal. saying somethings illegal when its not just makes you
look like an idiot.

people need to protest for better laws, not getting individual cops sentenced,
because that wont ever happen with any kind of regularity.

------
turc1656
" _But what if police officers were equipped with body cameras that could
alert them the instant they come into view of a handgun, or some other weapon?
Or if bank’s security system could sound an alarm the instant cameras detect a
robbery in progress?_ "

Why are we even bothering with spending money trying to create technology like
this? How often do banks actually get robbed anymore by gun-wielding maniacs?
And how often do officers actually die in the line of duty by getting shot by
armed citizens? This is the more frequent case than the bank robbery, and even
that is exceedingly rare. Only ~140 officers died on the job in 2016 and of
those only 64 died from being shot. Factor in that even in a fair amount of
circumstances when they know someone is armed they still end up getting shot
and that number of preventable deaths (in theory) gets even lower.

What I always find strange is the obsession with "officer safety". Being a cop
isn't even one of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the country, statistically
speaking. It's far more dangerous to be in logging, farming, construction,
fishing, transportation, etc. And that's comparing the numbers for a very high
year like 2016. In 2013 the number of officer deaths was less than half of
2016 - only 31 cops died from being shot - out of ~900,000 officers in the
nation.

This kind of thing is just a colossal waste of money.

" _Systems like these still have a ways to go, especially since those false
alarms could have deadly consequences for civilians being approached by body
camera-wielding cops._ "

That's the biggest issue I have with this. This will become a new reason for
them to detain and probably stop and frisk. "The device alerted me to a
possible threat" \- this will be the excuse and this will lead to reduced
rights because the courts will, of course, consider it "reasonable suspicion"
based on the technology. There will also be no incentive to increase accuracy
since interacting with more citizens makes/catches more criminals, which means
numerically they are doing a better job.

~~~
lolsal
> What I always find strange is the obsession with "officer safety". Being a
> cop isn't even one of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the country,
> statistically speaking. It's far more dangerous to be in logging, farming,
> construction, fishing, transportation, etc.

I don't think it has to do with the numbers exactly. If you are a skilled
logger and don't make any mistakes, you are likely pretty safe. As a skilled
cop, without any mistakes, your life can still be in jeopardy at the drop of a
hat. No amount of safety gear can protect a cop from someone pulling a knife
or other weapon with intent to harm either the cop or an innocent civilian.

I think there is also the aspect that cops are public servants. It's
compassion that makes me want to keep these folks alive who are voluntarily
taking risks to protect me and my community.

I think the numbers are also not totally representative - are all 'cops'
lumped in together for the statistic about job safety? Does that include
detectives doing mostly office or investigative work? Does it include officers
writing parking tickets? Does it blend cops patrolling the suburbs with cops
patrolling inner cities?

I don't have any sources about my claims here, I don't really know a lot about
the dangers of logging or the statistics about the dangers of being a cop.

\---

What bothers me the most about this is that visual presence of a firearm is
immediately associated with criminal behavior or intent.

~~~
turc1656
That's a good point about the risk not being in control of the officer through
something like skill. Though, I don't think that changes the essence of my
point, which could be summed up as diminishing returns. If we had a much
higher rate of officer fatalities, then I would say pursuing this technology
makes sense. But I think the resources can be allocated better elsewhere.

Totally agree that the mere presence of a gun being an alarm bell of sorts is
the biggest issue here.

~~~
eridius
I disagree, I think the presence of a gun is definitely cause for alarm. The
only reason anyone should be carrying a gun that is visible to others is if
they intend to use it. If you want to carry one regularly (as opposed to only
when you're going to use it), get a concealed carry permit, and keep it
concealed.

~~~
turc1656
I strongly disagree that having a weapon on display is only done if there is
intent to use it. In some areas of the south, open carry is quite common. It
should also be noted that getting a concealed carry permit is not always that
easy, depending on where you live.

The reason I have no issue with open carry is that it 1) makes the weapon more
quickly accessible should it be needed and 2) it acts as a deterrent. I think
having a gun visible to any possible violent criminals would make them far
less likely to choose that individual than one who may or may not be
concealing it in their pant leg, purse, backpack, etc.

In fact, those two reasons are exactly why cops open carry when on duty. They
need to have quick access just in case shit goes down and it makes people
think twice (and then a third and fourth time) if they see an armed officer -
how likely is it that someone is going to try to assault a cop and escape
arrest if they could be shot in ~1 second?

Police by nature cannot be everywhere at all times. Even in dense cities it is
not realistic to expect an officer to be able to respond within 30 seconds - a
length of time that means the world when it comes to violent crime, whether it
involves a gun or not. The further out you go from the dense cities the longer
the response time, making it even more critical to have protection for
yourself. This is the entire reason why the second amendment exists - to be
able to protect yourself when the government cannot enforce and defend your
rights for you.

~~~
eridius
> _it acts as a deterrent_

I'm pretty sure this has been thoroughly debunked. The only thing that
carrying a weapon does is make it more likely that someone will die if an
incident occurs. Not only because now there's a gun involved, but also because
if the criminal's victims are armed with guns, then the criminal is going to
be armed with a gun too.

> _In fact, those two reasons are exactly why cops open carry when on duty._

What cops do and don't do is pretty much irrelevant to talking about the
general public. They actually have the legal authority to do things like shoot
people, or just to arrest them in general, meaning the presence of a cop
(armed or otherwise) acts as a deterrent to crime already.

> _This is the entire reason why the second amendment exists - to be able to
> protect yourself when the government cannot enforce and defend your rights
> for you._

No, the second amendment exists because it dates to when militias were common
(in fact it explicitly mentions militias). I believe it was also meant as an
escape hatch to allow another revolution if the US government got out of hand
(which comes back to the whole militia thing). It was not intended as a
deterrent for ordinary crime.

~~~
turc1656
That has not been debunked - I'd say the jury is still out, at best. Many of
the studies that supposedly debunk this claim have issues like including
suicides, cherry picking specific violent crimes and excluding others, not
accounting for gun purchases made in high risk areas because people buy out of
fear (meaning violent crime was on the rise before the purchases), etc. One of
the most reasonable studies I've seen is the one conducted by the CDC and was
commissioned by the Obama administration.

[http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-
firearms-s...](http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-
self-defense-important-crime-deterrent)

The CDC concluded that it is an important deterrent to crime and found
consistently lower injury rates for armed citizens compared with victims who
used other defense methods (or had no defense method at all).

What cops do is absolutely not irrelevant in this regard. I would like to
remind you that ordinary citizens can usually legally detain and physically
restrain a criminal and can perform a citizen's arrest when they witness a
felony crime in progress. What better way to do that than with a gun? Also,
any person can legally apply lethal force if their life is in jeopardy. Cops
are granted the extra benefit of being able to apply lethal force when someone
else's life is in jeopardy and theirs is not.

Yes, a crucial reason behind the second amendment was to maintain the ability
to fight against a tyrannical government. Another reason is the ability to
fight on behalf of your government on an as-needed, short-notice type of
scenario. The third main reason is what I mentioned - self-defense. The
threats of that time were much greater - angry Brits that we snubbed, Native
Americans that we killed, wild animals, etc. Plus the need to hunt. Being
armed was a necessity. It was so obvious, that I think that part didn't even
get mentioned in the second amendment. However, later on a number of states
added specific state constitutional provisions that secured the right to "bear
arms in defense of themselves and the state". These provisions usually
included an element of self/personal defense as well as the state or "common
defense". These are separate things. A very clear example is Colorado - " _The
right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and
property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be
called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify
the practice of carrying concealed weapons._ "

Please also keep in mind that since the constitution trumps all other laws
(federal, state, etc.), all other laws that are passed must conform to the
constitution to be considered legal and valid. Colorado's language is
extremely clear and plain. It has never been overturned or deemed
unconstitutional. This therefore means that the second amendment must contain
the right to personal self-defense not in service of the nation. And it should
be clear based on these state provisions that were all passed that it was
clearly a major element.

~~~
eridius
> _This therefore means that the second amendment must contain the right to
> personal self-defense not in service of the nation._

No, it just means the second amendment doesn't _prohibit_ that.

------
jjfeore
Am I misreading this article. They had 30 test scenes they tested this with,
and in those 30 tests it returned 57 false positives? That seems super
useless. It sounds like it is basically just throwing alerts for every scene.

~~~
CGamesPlay
The "scenes" are likely hours of video footage, but yes this is certainly
missing a denominator. I think the best unit is probably "fraction of video
time a handgun is on screen" but that's not told in the article.

------
colek42
I live in the south, it is perfectly legal and socially acceptable to carry a
handgun, concealed or open. Something like this could add context to a
situation, but sounding an alarm because of a handgun present sounds like a
bit much.

------
ameister14
So 3d print modifications to your handgun that alter its shape but not its
functionality. Not a difficult workaround.

~~~
philipkglass
A lot of common security measures can be defeated with modest technical skill
and diligence. Fortunately for the police and the public, the vast majority of
armed criminals are not even modestly technically skilled and diligent.
They're largely fools with poor impulse control. If you are smart enough to
spot weaknesses in security measures and implement workarounds, you probably
already have a job with better long term prospects than "bank stickup guy."

There are _some_ criminals that get rich from armed robbery, but your typical
armed bank robber has a short and none-too-lucrative career:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-robbing-banks-
in-r...](http://www.businessinsider.com/people-are-robbing-banks-in-record-
numbers-in-houston-and-most-of-them-are-getting-caught-2012-8)

[https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/04/26/bank_robbers...](https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2013/04/26/bank_robbers_why_do_they_even_bother_anymore.html)

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/04/where-...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/04/where-
did-bank-robbers-go)

~~~
BoiledCabbage
> A lot of common security measures can be defeated with modest technical
> skill and diligence. Fortunately for the police and the public, the vast
> majority of armed criminals are not even modestly technically skilled and
> diligent.

Yes - although almost none of them have the technical expertise to manufacture
a gun and yet significant number of criminals own them. Similarly criminals
don't need the expertise to own a "gun obfuscating device" to own one.

~~~
philipkglass
There's a large, legal market for firearms in the US, so it's not hard for a
criminal to take advantage of that. What's going to produce a large, legal
market for dedicated gun obfuscating devices that criminals can similarly take
advantage of? I don't think that there is going to be one. I think it will be
more like a criminal getting access to e.g. plastic explosives: either he's
part of a criminal organization, already has a specialized day job that allows
for diversion, or has reasonably high technical skill and can manufacture the
materials in a home workshop. I'm not sure the "diversion from legitimate
business" path even works here, because again, I don't see the business need
for disguising open carried guns. If Johnny Hothead, having no specialized
connections, gets an offer to sell him some explosives then it's probably
coming from an agent of law enforcement rather than the local Crime Depot.

------
obstinate
It seems something like this would be great for airport scanners too, although
the biggest benefit would be in luggage scanning. I think the challenge would
be finding a diverse enough set of true positives to train the model.

------
axelerator
I cannot believe no one had pointed out the matching Robocop scene yet:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqDjcGgE5I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mqDjcGgE5I)
scnr

