https://www.thecrimson.com/art...il-ends-shotspotter/



By Shawn A. Boehmer and Claire A. Michal, Crimson Staff Writers
May 20, 2026
The Cambridge City Council narrowly voted Monday to end the city’s use of ShotSpotter, a gunshot detection system that has drawn years of criticism from residents and councilors over privacy concerns and potential data-sharing with federal authorities.

The policy order, which passed in a 5-2-2 vote, directs City Manager Yi-An Huang ’05 to remove and disable ShotSpotter devices across Cambridge within 90 days of signing the measure.



More than 30 residents urged the Council to cancel the city’s contract with SoundThinking, ShotSpotter’s parent company, during public comment Monday. They argued that the system is inaccurate, intrusive, and incompatible with Cambridge’s surveillance and sanctuary city ordinances.

ShotSpotter uses audio sensors to detect loud, impulsive noises that may be gunfire. When the system identifies a possible gunshot, it alerts police and sends local departments a short audio clip of the sound.

The Cambridge Police Department began using ShotSpotter in 2014, and in the decade since, only 35 percent of the notifications sent through the system were confirmed as actual gunfire. The system has often mistaken other loud noises — including backfiring cars and popping balloons — for gunshots

Councilor Ayah A. Al-Zubi ’23, the lead sponsor of the policy order, said the city should evaluate surveillance technologies against “measurable standards” — including accuracy, cost, or resident input, before adopting them.

“It’s got a higher false positive rate in our city and cities across the U.S., in which case I believe the benefit does not outweigh the risks of situations where our police department might be misled,” she said.

Acting Police Commissioner Pauline E. Wells urged councilors to keep the system in place, arguing that ShotSpotter gives police a tool to respond to gunfire when residents do not call 911.

“There have been at least 11 times when ShotSpotter detected gunfire in our city, and not a single 911 call came in — not one. That means 11 moments when no one reached for the phone, 11 moments when officers would have no direction, 11 moments when seconds were slipping away, and ShotSpotter was the only reason help was there at all,” Wells said.



Councilor Jivan G. Sobrinho-Wheeler argued the city should prioritize accurate technology, even if it means changing devices to avoid an ineffective system.

“Let’s actually use proven technologies for all of the things, and let’s tell that to our community, rather than doing some security theater and telling them we’re deploying a thing that’s not actually helping,” he said.

ShotSpotter now falls under the city’s surveillance technology ordinance, which was passed in 2018 to require direct approval from the City Council before a city department can make a purchase. But Cambridge first entered into a contract with SoundThinking in 2014 — requiring no Council vote before microphones were installed across the city.

And Monday’s decision caps off a yearslong effort to remove the devices from the city, as its use has been repeatedly called into question in front of the Council.

In April, a meeting was held in the Council’s Public Safety Committee, bringing together activists, representatives from ShotSpotter, and city officials — including anti-policing groups like The Black Response and Stop ShotSpotter Coalition Camberville. And shortly after, Al-Zubi filed the policy order to end the technology’s use.

Debate flared in the Council for two weeks after Vice Mayor Burhan Azeem exercised his charter right, tabling discussion for an additional week.

Opponents of ShotSpotter have repeatedly raised concerns about the system’s listening capabilities, arguing that the devices constantly monitor public spaces in violation of residents’ privacy. While the sensors continuously listen for sounds that may be gunfire — similar to a voice-activated device — they only begin recording when they detect a qualifying sound.

Activists and councilors have also questioned whether data collected by ShotSpotter could be shared with federal immigration enforcement agencies, potentially violating Cambridge’s sanctuary city ordinance. SoundThinking owns the data collected by its microphones, which have been installed in hundreds of cities across the country.

Cambridge funds its use of ShotSpotter amounting to roughly $50,000 through the federal Department of Homeland Security’s Urban Areas Security Initiative, which allocates federal support to counterterrorism efforts.

Jerome Filip, a spokesperson for SoundThinking, wrote in a statement that ShotSpotter is “proven, unbiased technology” that gives police departments “faster response, evidence collection, and lifesaving medical aid, all the while preserving privacy.”



“We remain committed to working with communities, like Cambridge, that share our belief that every resident deserves those protections against gun violence,” he added.

The system came under renewed scrutiny after it failed to detect gunfire during a shooting on Memorial Drive last week that left two people with life-threatening injuries.

Wells said police were already en route when they received 911 calls reporting gunfire in the area. Huang joined Wells in urging councilors to keep the system, arguing that ShotSpotter can improve emergency response times when it sends an accurate alert.

“I think that’s been the experience that we’ve seen in the data — that we’re able to respond more quickly. And even though Monday’s incident was completely an anomaly, it reminds us that time really does matter in these circumstances,” Huang said.

After nearly an hour of debate, the Council voted to remove the technology. Azeem and Councilor Catherine “Cathie” Zusy voted present.

Filip wrote that SoundThinking is “continuing to review the full scope of yesterday’s City Council vote and its implications in Cambridge.”

65% false positives, seems rather expensive.

It is expensive. I worked at an agency that had it and had it deployed properly. It worked fantastically. Very common back then for us to roll up and catch them fleeing the scene, or provide lifesaving efforts. Or watch them take their last breath.

But if not deployed just right, or too long a delay on officer response, it’s a waste. I’ve seen that too.

It alerts to noises that could be gunshots, it’s not perfect and it gives the responding officers the ability to listen to it before they arrive, to rule out non-gunshots. Cars backfiring were a common one, transformers blowing was another.

But it definitely works and works very well.

I guess I now know what a Bedouin from Jordan does with a degree in sociology from Harvard: Councilor Ayah A. Al-Zubi ’23.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: trapper189,

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
MSN and Fox are reporting that another concern was racial disparity

Good, now use the same legal maneuvers to get rid of FLOCK cameras monitoring peoples movements.

I also work for an agency that utilizes ShotSpotter. It works surprisingly well. It can be a pretty good investigative tool, but it is very expensive. My city actually reduced the coverage to save costs, but it's still in the high-cirme areas for the most part.