Gun Detection AI The Latest Tech To Make Schools Less Safe

from the if-you-like-the-false-positives,-you're-going-to-love-the-false-negatives dept

We’re just going to keep getting kids killed in America. We’ll never stop throwing money in the direction of the problem, but not directly at the problem. Nothing gets safer. It just gets more budget line items.

The problem with school shootings is uniquely American. The proposed solutions — and the industry that has sprung up to address the problem — are simply demand creating supply. We have to stop shootings in schools. We just don’t think the problem is the easy availability of guns.

So there’s a market — one that has been filled by public and private entities. Some public entities think training and expertise is the solution and spend their time terrorizing students and teachers in hopes that they’ll respond with slightly less terror when an actual shooting is occurring. These same entities also spend public money training law enforcement to respond quickly to reported shootings, only to see less than ideal results when this training is put to use.

More public money buys tech that is supposed to keep the problem at bay. Students are routinely subjected to round-the-clock surveillance that is far more than cameras in schools. It also includes social media surveillance, unfettered access to student mental health records, and exploitation of loopholes in student privacy laws.

Tech isn’t solving the problem. Schools are using ShotSpotter-esque tech to detect gunshots. Others are utilizing mics to “detect aggression” — something that manifests as false positives for slammed locker doors, coughing, and — in tests performed by researchers — clips of comedian Gilbert Gottfried.

Now, a company is bringing AI into the mix, promising a high-tech solution to gun violence in schools. Evolv has been aggressively marketing its “AI-based weapons screening system” to schools. Schools, unfortunately, have been spending money on this unproven tech. The company has pretty decent copywriters. It does not, however, have much scientific evidence on hand to back its claims about weapon detection.

Joseph Cox has public records receipts for Motherboard. His report shows the tradeoff of privacy for safety isn’t working out. Students are definitely losing whatever privacy they have left when entering schools using Evolv systems. What they aren’t getting in return is any additional safety. Emails from administrators of schools where Evolv is installed depict rollouts of the tech as catastrophic failures.

On the ground, the reality of deploying Evolv scanners is very different than marketing materials suggest. Some school administrators are reporting that the scanners have caused “chaos”—failing to detect common handguns at commonly-used sensitivity settings, mistaking everyday school items for deadly weapons, and failing to deliver on the company’s promise of frictionless school security.

“Today was probably the least safe day,” one principal observed the day scanners were deployed at her school, because the machines were triggering false alarms and requiring manual searches on “almost every child as they walked through” monopolizing the attention of safety officers who would otherwise be monitoring the halls and other entrances.

The rollout in the Charlotte Mecklenburg School District was a response to twenty-three guns being found on its 180 campuses during the first four months of the 2021 school year. The district claimed Evolv was instrumental in dropping this number to only seven weapons during the rest of the year. But those actually in the schools saw something else — a failure one principal referred to as a “cluster[fuck].”

The purchase and deployment took place despite noted concerns from district administrators, who informed Evolv they were able to bring a pistol into a school with the machine set to the default sensitivity. Promises of “line-free” convenient scanning were immediately proven false. The only suggestion that security experts had was for students to arrive earlier. As the system failed again and again, Evolv was somehow still included in district email chains as educators and administrators sought advice on how to respond to staff concerns and media questions.

Evolv doesn’t appear to like the media much, especially when its AI is being questioned. In response to Motherboard’s inquiries about the multiple failures detailed in district emails, Evolv suggested the site was endangering students simply by publishing this article.

“Our note to you, as a reporter doing your job: by publicly communicating detailed information on sensitivity settings, protocols and processes puts students and educators at risk and endangers lives,” said Evolv Chief Marketing Officer Dana Loof, in a statement sent to Motherboard. 

But this reporting doesn’t make students less safe. It appears Evolv’s AI is doing most of that work itself.

Although phones and keys—menaces to traditional metal detectors—do not set off Evolv scanners, Spartansburg did report “3-ring binders do hit it a lot. Laptops will hit.” The school also reported that about 25 percent of students have to be searched manually using the “C” setting—the one that doesn’t detect a Glock pistol. Turning up the sensitivity setting would require even more students to be manually searched. 

The system is creating new problems, as detailed in one high school principal’s email:

Currently, the reality is that ‘weapons of mass instruction’ set off almost every child as they walk through. If you have multiple binders or spiral notebooks in your bag then it lights up and we must search. The solve I was given was literally to ask kids not to bring so many binders. Seriously?

False positives means tying up more personnel security with searches at entrances, leaving hallways and offices unmanned. And if there are false positives, there are bound to false negatives, especially when schools lower sensitivity settings after too many false positives.

And it’s not like these problems aren’t well-documented. Motherboard links to IPVM reports on Evolv’s weapons detection AI that utilized previously publicly available Evolv instruction manuals. However, Evolv pulled these documents from its site in response to questions from IVPM, again suggesting any reporting on Evolv’s tech endangered the public.

These are not the actions of a company that has confidence in its own product. But its desire to hide information from journalists hasn’t stopped it from presenting itself as a gun-detection solution for multiple public places, including schools. The reality of Evolv’s AI seems to be trailing far behind the rosier picture painted by its sales pitches. Continuing to deny the reality of the situation is going to get students killed.

Filed Under: , , , , ,
Companies: evolv

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Gun Detection AI The Latest Tech To Make Schools Less Safe”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
21 Comments
PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

It’s been a while since I saw the sequels, but wasn’t there the implication that even after the disastrous boardroom demo in the first movie, ED-209 was deployed anyway?

It wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest if they has similarly disastrous demos for these products, but someone figured potential profits outweighed the risks of a public malfunction. As Dick Jones said “who cares if it works or not?”, it’s not like the people who collect the money will personally experience the hardship caused by it not working…

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Schools are using ShotSpotter-esque tech to detect gunshots.

Spotting gunshots means that things have already gone bad, and nearby teachers and pupils, like in the next classroom, have already heard them. The only value of such a system is making an administrator feel good about trying to solve a problem, while doing nothing to actually solve the problem.

This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

I just want to know how to get in on this gravy train. Seems like all I need is a good copywriter with the ability to string together a bunch of nonsense and “artificial intelligence.” <> It took a couple of minutes, but I’ve just invented the “mayhem brain scanner,” which detects malicious brain waves using artificial intelligence. This is a non-intrusive device that can detect a person with malicious intent in a crowd. Our scientific tests have proven the accuracy to 99.47%. The base model is available now at the introductory price of just $29.95 with discounts for volume purchasers. Optional features are priced separately. On-site support available if we can find someone locally who owns a suit and tie and is able to write their name legibly. Hurry. The introductory price expires soon and quantities are limited.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
TaboToka (profile) says:

Re:

by publicly communicating detailed information on sensitivity setting

“Security through obscurity“

When designing anything security-wise, it is helpful to remember Kerckhoff’s Principle: assume the enemy knows the system, the settings & the secrets, and design accordingly.

TaboToka (profile) says:

False Positives

False positives means tying up more personnel security with searches at entrances, leaving hallways and offices unmanned.

In the security biz, a false-positive is considered a fail.

And if there are false positives, there are bound to false negatives, especially when schools lower sensitivity settings after too many false positives.

Thus defeating the purpose. But as long as the check cleared, Evolv can count it as a ‘success’!

That One Guy (profile) says:

False confidence is far worse than ignorance

“Our note to you, as a reporter doing your job: by publicly communicating detailed information on sensitivity settings, protocols and processes puts students and educators at risk and endangers lives,” said Evolv Chief Marketing Officer Dana Loof, in a statement sent to Motherboard.

Ooh, got some bad news for them, when your product already doesn’t work reporters telling people that it doesn’t work can’t make it works less. If anything doing so is helping schools because it is informing them that the tech works so badly that it will be missing actual weapons while triggering false-positives left and right, something that is worse than not having the system at all.

Anonymous Coward says:

Tim's one wierd trick...

Techdirt is generally and uniquely good at providing nuanced insight on issues and events that stand at the intersection of policy, law, and technology. Which is why I’m always surprised and disappointed at Techdirt’s (maybe it’s just Tim? Not sure how broad a brush I should use) inability or unwillingness to see nuance when it comes to guns. Tim writes the following:

We have to stop shootings in schools. We just don’t think the problem is the easy availability of guns.

Well, Tim, that’s because the problem is not the easy availability of guns and ten minutes of googling would reveal that.

Given that school shootings have increased in the last few years, if the availability of guns were the culprit we would expect to be able to find an event that increased the availability of guns. But there isn’t one; guns have always been available. Maybe it’s not the guns.

Expanding our scope, gun homicides have been declining for decades while the number of guns in circulation has increased steadily. If more guns means more homicides, we’d expect the opposite. Maybe it’s not the guns.

Yes, the U.S. homicide rate is higher than other European countries. So is rape, robbery, and theft. No one claims that all types of violent crime are caused by guns; instead we look at cultural and social causes. The U.S. is a violent culture relative to our European peers by many measures. Maybe it’s not the guns.

I would ask Techdirt to treat gun related topics the way it treats other topics that tangentially connect to its primary domain of expertise, with caution and humility. To do otherwise is irresponsible and a disservice to Techdirt readership.

Naughty Autie says:

Re:

Given that school shootings have increased in the last few years, if the availability of guns were the culprit we would expect to be able to find an event that increased the availability of guns.

You mean like the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Banexpiry of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban and the subsequent prevention by Republicans of its re-enactment? You’re right, that totally doesn’t explain the proliferation of AK47s and AR-15s at all. (-_Q)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

We’re talking about school shootings, not the proliferation of AR-15s or AK-47s. Only 7% of school shootings have been committed with rifles of any kind. The vast majority have been committed with handguns. If your concern is school shootings, ad you insist on only focusing on guns, your focus should be on handguns.

tracyanne says:

Re: Tim's one weird trick

quote:: Tim writes the following:

We have to stop shootings in schools. We just don’t think the problem is the easy availability of guns. 

Well, Tim, that’s because the problem is not the easy availability of guns ::quote

Well if that’s the case, I guess Australians are just nicer people than Americans, and the total lack of school shootings has nothing to do with the difficulty of obtaining guns, and especially Assault style Guns, in Australia, has nothing to do with it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

The availability of assault style guns has nothing to do with school shootings. School shootings happened before they were available in the US and the vast majority of school shooters use handguns.

To discuss Australia, let’s back-up a bit and think holistically. For a school shooter to successfully carry out an attack, they need three things: means, motive, and opportunity. Guns are only the means, they are not the motive. However, reducing one or more of the three components reduces the likelihood of a successful attack, so let’s look at them separately.

Opportunity:
I’ll assume that Australian schools are similar enough to US schools in number and structure that the opportunity component is similar. As a society we take measures like minimizing entrances into schools, putting locks on classroom doors, hiring armed guards, or installing metal detectors to reduce opportunity.

Motive:
The motive question is more complicated. Motive comes from a mix of personal and cultural factors. I would suggest that Australian culture is different from US culture for not fighting a violent revolutionary war for independence, not being economically dependent on a slave economy for centuries, not instituting policies to cause the descendants of those slaves to be an underclass, not fighting an incredibly bloody civil war, not having a large land border across which millions of undocumented economic refuges have fled to become a different kind of underclass, not being primary targets in a cold war with nuclear armed opponents, and many more. This says nothing about the cultures of the original settlers and how that culture affected politics and social structures down the centuries. You joked about Australians being nicer, but I think we can safely say that Australian culture is likely different than US culture in ways that would have an impact on a tiny number of disaffected men who become violent. Motive is a tough problem to address and policy is usually an ineffective tool for creating culture change. There may be good policies that can make a dent in this component, but the timescale and uncertainties are large. We should make efforts to address the problem here but be realistic about what is achievable.

Means:
Australian-style gun confiscation (mandatory buy-back) is a policy issue aimed at reducing the means a school shooter would have to carry out an attack. When evaluating any proposed policy one must ask five questions: What is the problem being solved, will the proposed policy solve the problem, can the policy be enforced, is it worth it, is there a better alternative? Let’s go through them.
*What is the problem being solved? School shootings.
*Will the proposed policy solve the problem? We can presume that eliminating guns would reduce the means component. Though there are many aspects of this problem that make this less than perfectly effective, let’s just assume for simplicity that gun confiscation would entirely eliminate school shootings and save roughly 30 lives per year at current rates.
*Can the policy be enforced? Probably not. Even in very blue states, attempts to force residents to register their firearms are rarely successful. Given the US populations resistance to gun laws and the lack of a complete registry it is highly unlikely that this could be enforced on any level without significant effort, which leads us to the next question:
*Is it worth it? The Australian policy confiscated enough guns to lower the number of guns in private hands to ~2.5 million or 14 guns per 100 people. To reach the same level of gun ownership in the US (46 million guns), the US government would have to confiscate roughly 300 million guns from well over 100 million gun owners. This would be a deployment of government force and coercion on an incredible scale and would likely have far reaching and disastrous consequences. Assuming that this does not cause the destabilization of social and political structures across the country, the number of people that would be killed by confiscation alone is enormous. If even 0.1% of gun owners violently resisted confiscation, this would lead to the deaths of around 100,000 people. That’s a lot of death to save 30 lives per year. So no, this is absolutely not worth it.
*Finally, are there better alternatives? Yeah, see the brief discussion about opportunity above. Hardening otherwise soft targets is a significantly cheaper, more effective, and less risky way to reduce school shootings.

So, we can agree that guns, while not being the motive for school shootings, provide the means. But trying to stop school shootings by going after the means (as Australia did) is impossible in this country, and we’d all be better off not wasting time, money, and political energy trying to do so. Just harden the schools, it’s the only tool we realistically have in the short term.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re:

“Given that school shootings have increased in the last few years, if the availability of guns were the culprit we would expect to be able to find an event that increased the availability of guns.”

Such as this? https://news.yahoo.com/gun-sales-spike-latest-school-032122656.html. There are many similar stories over the last couple of decades.

It generally well recorded that after certain events, there’s a spike in gun sales. Some are related to concrete events (such as mass shootings), some to more wooly paranoia in relation to Democrat election wins, but there’s regular spikes. The number of households owning guns seems to hold steady at around 42%, so the conclusion is that gun owners buy more in response to news events, and therefore it’s logical that they’re easier for some people to get hold of if they decide to use them against human targets. Another conclusion is that since the purchase of new weapons seems to be driven so much by fear and paranoia, there’s a greater chance of them ending up in the hands of someone not in a state of mind to responsibly own them.

“Expanding our scope, gun homicides have been declining for decades while the number of guns in circulation has increased steadily. If more guns means more homicides, we’d expect the opposite. Maybe it’s not the guns.”

Guns aren’t necessarily the only cause, or perhaps not even the primary cause. But, it seems clear that if people decide to use them the damage is exponentially worse than if people don’t have them. Access to guns in Switzerland doesn’t seem to inspire their use against human beings as much as they do in the US, but similarly there’s a reason why attempts at public slaughter using knives aren’t increasing the way that such things using guns in the US have been. There’s examples of gun bans leading to drops in overall violence and mass shooting events in other countries, and I can assure you that the drop in violence didn’t happen to coincide with a drop in violent people.

Guns aren’t the only factor, but to not include the massive proliferation of the things in a country where there’s now more guns than people cannot be ignored. There might be cultural reasons why only children in the US have to do mass shooter drills, but the fact that it’s so uniquely easy for someone wanting to shoot up a school to be able to get the tools to do so is something to be investigated. Violence, mental illness, violent media, etc. are not unique to the US, but access to the weaponry is one factor that sets it apart.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

PaulT, your thoughtful and nuanced comment is refreshing.

However, I think your causal chain is wrong in a few places.
1) The purchase spikes after school shootings are likely driven not by fear of school shootings, but by fear of politicians usage of school shootings as an excuse to pass additional ineffective and pointless gun control laws.
2) As you said, the household gun ownership rate has been steady, so the people buying guns are the ones that already have guns. Additional guns in those households would not affect availability of guns. The paranoid already have them so the availability has not changed. This was my primary point earlier, that if changes in availability are driving changes in school shootings, we’d expect to find an increase in availability. Because no change in availability is present (the availability has always been there) we can conclude that it is not an increase in availability that is driving an increase in school shootings.
3) There is a missing but important causal link between media coverage of school shootings (and mass shootings generally) and their occurrence. That is, when the media focuses so heavily on school shootings, it provides them a cultural significance and weight that increases the likelihood that someone wanting to send a message or make an impact will choose to do a school shooting. This is an important cultural factor that has nothing to do with guns but might have an impact on this issue specifically. For similar examples of this dynamic, note how the media has learned to treat stories involving suicide more carefully to prevent copy-cats. Also, how Mexican drug cartels started beheading people after they saw how much media attention beheadings of westerners got in the Middle East.

I agree with you that guns are not necessarily the only factor or primary cause. I also agree that attacks are made worse (but not more common) by their presence (though, you might want to ask the British if knife crimes are on the rise). But the important question is what we do about it. We cannot look to other countries as an example of what to do about because those countries are different from the US in very important ways that make their policy solutions completely inappropriate or even dangerous for the US. The US is not unique in having violence, mental illness, or violent media, but the US is an astonishingly violent culture by any metric compared to our European neighbors. That is a fundamental difference than cannot be ignored in favor of just saying “it must be the guns”. If we ignore these factors we end up with policy solutions like confiscation, which, as I said in a comment above, will cause death at a scale that dwarfs school shootings by several orders of magnitude. This is not a good trade-off.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...