A San Francisco Coder Built a Musical Surveillance System
With a name inspired by a controversial police surveillance technology, Bop Spotter scans the streets for ambient tunes.

Somewhere in San Francisco's Mission District, they say a solar-powered phone is concealed in a box atop a pole. The phone is running Shazam—an app that identifies songs—with a microphone trained on the street below. If you visit walzr.com, you can see what music has drifted into the mic's range, hear fragments of the tracks mixed with ambient street noise, and click links to hear the full songs on Spotify or Apple Music.
The man behind this is Riley Walz, a 22-year-old programmer with a history of prankish projects, such as tricking Twitter into verifying a fake congressional candidate. He calls this one Bop Spotter, after ShotSpotter, a controversial company whose sound sensors can allegedly pinpoint a gunshot's location.
Outside investigators have raised serious questions about ShotSpotter's accuracy, leading many activists to demand that police departments not use it. When Walz unveiled Bop Spotter, it set off another round of online arguments about these issues. But Walz insists that he wasn't trying to make a political statement. "It is interesting though that this has sparked a debate about surveillance," he says. "Tracking what songs people are blasting seems innocuous and no one really has a problem with it, but maybe they should? I have no idea. But the debate is cool."
Walz's website says the project is about "catching vibes," so I ask him what vibes he's caught so far. "There have been some interesting ones," he replies. "Someone played 'Me So Horny' on Monday at 9 a.m. Or 'Just the Two of Us' on Sunday at 3 a.m. I like imagining what the stories behind these are." His setup hasn't required much maintenance so far, and he hopes it will be soaking up sounds for years. "It'll be cool to do analysis on how genres/artists have changed over time. And see if there's correlation with all sorts of things: weather, gentrification, immigration."
The project has been popular: After Walz tweeted that with $2,000 he'd build more boxes and send them around the world, he reports, the money popped up in his PayPal within an hour. "People in Seattle, Austin, New York, Boston, Sweden, London, even the Philippines are gonna put one up!"
Given Walz's history of pranks, diligence requires me to add that I live approximately 2,800 miles from San Francisco and cannot corroborate this story with my own eyes and ears. But one X user, the entrepreneur and housing activist Vincent Woo, has tweeted that he located the site and confirmed that it works by playing a song there. Specifically, he played Rick Astley's "Never Gonna Give You Up." Even a surveillance system can be rickrolled.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Musical Surveillance."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Cool except the Bop Spotter website hasn't had any new songs added since November 10th. Lotta press from October, though.
Cool except the Bop Spotter website hasn't had any new songs added since November 10th.
Walz already had to go out to fix this once, and I suppose he'll have to do it again.
Lotta press from October, though.
And guess when I wrote this! Damn those print lead times.
Shot Spotter has, of course, been shut down by knuckle dragging Chicago mayor Brandon Johnson. Since then there have been more than twenty homicides committed in areas previously monitored by Shot Spotter.
Johnson will go down as the very worst mayor in Chicago history. Even worse than mayor Beetlejuice /Lori Lightfoot. Totally corrupted and unbelievably stupid.
1. Shotspotter never prevented homocides. Those 20 people would have died with shotspotter too.
2. The main use of shotspotter was to direct police to gunshots to investigate quickly. There have been several homocides that weren't found until much later and several people who likely died because no automated report got anyone out to investigate in time to get medical care to them.
ShotSpotter never claimed to stop shootings, it was to get police and medical personnel to a site more quickly.
Apparently, that is a bad thing, so must be curtailed, or even eliminated.
The idea is not necessarily a bad thing but the rate of false positives was. As was the fact that it duplicated and did not materially enhance phoned-in 911 calls. So it was expensive, unnecessary and didn't work. And you want to continue it why?
Average 911 wait times in Chicago are so bad they stopped reporting the numbers.
https://www.safesmartliving.com/average-police-response-time/
Interesting article but it's entirely about response times, not notification times. If police are slow responding to a 911 call, what will make them magically faster when responding to a ShotSpotter alert?
I never said it was to prevent homicides. You just made that up.
That person making the comment seems to be mistaking what the shotspotter is. It doesn't hear shots before they are fired by some magical means, it hears them after someone has already been shot so it doesn't stop anything.
You mean a music surveillance system. A musical surveillance system would emit music while it surveilled whatever it surveilled.
Musical surveillance systems exist. There's a Whataburger near me that has a trailer in its parking lot with solar panels, batteries, and a mast with surveillance cameras covering the lot. It also has loudspeakers playing classical music, presumably as bum repellant.
Apparently bums don't like classical music.
They don't, there are a few stores in the LA area that do this, they are always the cleanest.
The solar powered camera set ups with loudspeakers are popping up everywhere from the local homebuilding box store to the grocery store parking lot
a controversial company whose sound sensors can allegedly pinpoint a gunshot's location.
Why is that controversial? Even if it gets it wrong, the worst case scenario is that it's no different than if it wasn't in place at all.
Is it good for evidence? Wikipedia says:
Is it good for just detecting shots? Wikipedia says:
Yeah, you're actually worse off with it, according to that. You could just ignore it, true, but it isn't free, so you're *still* worse off.
Right, so obvious objection to its use as evidence in Court. No biggie there. And its still tech in its infancy. That's fine too - gotta work out the bugs. "At the same time, Ferguson applauded Houston’s incremental approach to implementing the program."
Seems like the right way to do things of this nature, no?
I'm really curious about this line: "resulted in lower incident report rates and longer police response times." If you go to the source (lol, never go straight to wiki) - https://www.houstonchronicle.com/politics/houston/article/houston-shotspotter-program-debating-17790926.php - Because residents do not always call 911 to report every gunshot, the tool has allowed officers to map areas where gunfire problems are the most severe and deploy officers accordingly, he said.
That's kinda useful. Wiki (lol) of course characterizes this as "residents in coverage areas are people of color" - but let's not intentionally ignore the fact that folks with blasters popping off caps usually are people of an increased melanin content.
"We treat (a ShotSpotter alert) as a very high priority call and we run over there as quickly as we can," Martin said. "And that, I think, has resulted in a lot of those arrests that we made. People didn't expect us to get there as quickly as we did."
I mean, that sounds like a positive right?
Especially since law enforcement has suffered funding deprivations that can't keep and/or bring new actual cops on the street - tech seems like a pretty useful substitute.
Again, incrementally introduced and with respect to the burgeoning utility.