Smart Technology Can Make A Difference In Mitigating School Shootings
With the country still mourning the senseless massacre of the 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas, last week, many outraged Americans are demanding that politicians, schools, and law enforcement do more to safeguard schools. The changing narrative on what actually happened (which appears to change daily) once law enforcement arrived at the scene exacerbates the level of anger and futility that many people rightfully feel. Coupled with the “red flag” social media component of this discussion is only fueling the overwhelming sentiment among people that something must be done.
The element of the dialogue that I’d like to address in this blog is the potential of how existing technologies like social media monitoring, weapons and gunshot detection, building sensor utilization and real-time alert notifications can make a huge difference in saving lives. Our children must be protected, and we owe it to them.
Early warning technologies are mature and effective
America’s schools should comprehensively leverage existing smart technologies that are operative, cost-effective and relatively easy to implement. In the case of the Uvalde incident, these technologies could have provided an additional safety net that might have slowed the deranged murderer from entering the building. Original reports of the attack indicated that the door had been propped open with a rock by a careless teacher; it’s now being reported that the unnamed teacher removed the rock and closed the door but it did not lock.
In a school shooter situation, seconds are precious. It’s time now to require that schools have every door, window, and other means of entry have smart locks and sensors installed on them so that security can be instantly notified an entry point is not secure. Smart locks can confirm that the door is actually locked and not simply shut. Had a sensor been installed on that door, the attacker might not have gained entry into the school’s interior and provided a few more moments of notice to mount an effective reaction. While the delayed law enforcement response in Uvalde is now being scrutinized, the situation could have been far less catastrophic had the shooter been prevented from entering the building.
Gunshot and weapons detection could have made a difference too
Law enforcement, particularly in the country’s largest cities, has been using acoustic sensing technology to isolate, distinguish and report gunshots to the police within seconds of a shot being fired. These gunshot detection systems utilize multiple sensors to detect the sound of a gunshot and deploy transmitters to send a message to the police dispatch center. These systems are exact with accurate geo detection capability to less than 10 feet. In the case of the Ulvade killings, gunshot detection notifications could have provided a precise location of where the killer was, which might have prompted a more aggressive response by the initial authorities that arrived on the scene.
Weapons detection technology is relatively new as it employs high-performance object detection algorithms using deep neural networks. Using deep learning models, existing video surveillance systems can automatically leverage AI algorithms to identify guns and knives automatically. Some privacy experts balk at the unfiltered use of interior video cameras in schools because of the surveillance state atmosphere it creates for students. Still, that trade-off might be acceptable because of the proactive security benefits of detecting weapons in real-time. Motion detection technology using WiFi could be an appealing alternative that addresses privacy concerns as it can (without the use of video) sense and decipher movement anywhere WiFi signals are present. Cognitive Systems is a leader in this space and already offers this capability in the home, but there’s no reason why it can’t be expanded to businesses and schools.
Social media companies must be held accountable
Not surprisingly, proactive digital monitoring technology is getting a lot more scrutiny as it’s been reported that the gunman threatened to rape an online user and execute a school shooting on the social media app Yubo in the recent weeks before the actual attack. According to reports, three users said they witnessed the shooter making online threats to commit sexual violence or carry out school shootings. Yubo is a popular app used by millions of users (especially young people) worldwide and reported none of this to the authorities.
Despite threats by the Uvalde shooter made during a livestream to a female user who reported the attacks, Yubo allowed him to continue to live stream. None of these threats were ever reported to the authorities, who might have intervened proactively. It’s time to require social media companies to immediately report severe and explicit online threats to the authorities that might prevent future violence. I’m under no illusion that this will potentially saturate already constrained law enforcement resources with investigating cases that do not pan out, but that problem can be dealt with separately.
I’m acutely aware that many (if not most) social media companies will push back on this requirement, given the admitted challenges of identifying what constitutes a valid threat and dealing with the sheer volume of posts that need to be examined. But I’m skeptical that suitable algorithms can’t be utilized to identify “high confidence” posts that should be rapidly reported to the authorities. I’m also aware that this subject is rife with privacy concerns. Still, many social media companies already make threats of violence (actual or not) in their terms of conditions. After all, social media platforms are private companies that could put users on notice with a zero-tolerance policy that messages threats of physical violence will be promptly reported to the authorities.
Some closing thoughts
A significant part of breaking down the Uvalde massacre is that we still don’t know all the details of what happened unambiguously. One thing is sure: we will learn more about what occurred (and the timeline) a month from now than we know now, including the red flags about the shooter that appears to be growing longer.
One other challenge in preventing (or at least mitigating) another Ulvade tragedy is that schools are managed at the local level. Enforceable national standards need to be implemented that require schools to install sensors on all doors, windows and other entry points. No exceptions. Schools must implement aligned best practices that allow all school entry points to be monitored in real-time at a central point. Unsecured doors must compel a mandatory visit from school security personnel in an immediate (less than 3 minute) fashion, though that may stretch schools with multiple buildings and limited on-site security personnel.
Then there is the question of IT capability. Some schools have rich IT resources to implement these capabilities, while others have far more limited expertise. This area is where the Federal government could play an essential role, as some of the already-approved Covid-related spending over the past two years could be repurposed to provide IT expertise and installation assistance to fiscally-challenged schools.
The debate continues to rage around where further gun control changes and more comprehensive (and consistent) background checks are the best way to deal with this crisis. As the Wall Street Journal’s Jason Reilly pointed out in an excellent op-ed piece last week, deterrence is the “most realistic” option given the current political environment. But I’m somewhat skeptical as the Biden Administration apparently doesn’t believe in proposals to “harden schools” if the White House press secretary is to be believed.
Those controversial topics are not likely to resolve themselves in the short term. Educators and law enforcement would be wise to aggressively implement “smart” technology in schools as it could have an immediate impact on lessening these attacks in the future. After all, smart home security technology at the residential level has been on a Covid-induced tear for several years. These capabilities are proven, practical and cost-effective. What is the country waiting for?
Mark Vena is the CEO and Principal Analyst at SmartTech Research based in Silicon Valley. As a technology industry veteran for over 25 years, Mark covers many consumer tech topics, including PCs, smartphones, smart home, connected health, security, PC and console gaming, and streaming entertainment solutions. Mark has held senior marketing and business leadership positions at Compaq, Dell, Alienware, Synaptics, Sling Media and Neato Robotics. Mark has appeared on CNBC, NBC News, ABC News, Business Today, The Discovery Channel and other media outlets. Mark’s analysis and commentary have appeared on Forbes.com and other well-known business news and research sites. His comments about the consumer tech space have repeatedly appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, USA Today, TechNewsWorld and other news publications.
SmartTech Research, like all research and tech industry analyst firms, provides or has provided paid services to technology companies. These services include research, analysis, advising, consulting, benchmarking, acquisition or speaking sponsorships. Companies mentioned in this article may have utilized these services.
