Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 643 posts

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#151

Post by zpallin »

riazrizvi wrote: post #63

> Used by police across the United States for almost a decade, predictive policing relies on algorithms to interpret police records, analyzing arrest or parole data to send officers to target chronic offenders, or identifying places where crime may occur. The promise of the software made in a sales pitch or on the website, is a far cry from the reality of what such software delivers. That's fine when it's business, t…

I heard this recently, but I forgot where: policing software is supposed to be used to help inform decisions in addition to established investigative practices, but police are instead using the software as decision-makers which has possibly decreased accuracy in investigating crimes.

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#152

Post by basch »

tomohawk wrote: post #125
basch wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like to bring Then Now up everytime precrime comes up. Until it goes off the rails in the end, its one of my favorite articles of all time. The paragraphs I yanked below, dont do its craziness justice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7... "But the oddest is STATIC-99. It's a way of predicting whether sex offenders are likely to commit crimes again after they have been released. In America…

Not sure what the answer is for pedophiles. Hopefully it is not this: https://www.dw.com/en/berlin-authorities-placed-children-wit... The point being, some sort of predictive model is always used to evaluate sentencing and release. Is 5 years enough, or will that pedophile attack more kids when they get out? How about 10 years? Gee, they don't seem to be attacking children in prison, maybe we should release them earl…

What percent of a population will act is not a good gauge of the percent chance of an individual acting.

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#153

Post by zpallin »

franksvalli wrote: post #149

Just for the record, in 2011 Santa Cruz was proud to be the first in the US to try predictive policing: https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2011/01/14/crime-predictio... https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2020/06/20/santa-cruz-cons...

So, it means Santa Cruz has a track record for being on the cutting edge of policing technology?

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#154

Post by UnpossibleJim »

riazrizvi wrote: post #63

> Used by police across the United States for almost a decade, predictive policing relies on algorithms to interpret police records, analyzing arrest or parole data to send officers to target chronic offenders, or identifying places where crime may occur. The promise of the software made in a sales pitch or on the website, is a far cry from the reality of what such software delivers. That's fine when it's business, t…

I have no problem with that, but why aren't these types of statistical models and curve analysis being used to deploy drive by patrols? Some of this seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water, does it not?

While I agree that it's way too soon for this sort of granularity, is it too soon to have 10 block, increased presence of troubled areas helped by statistical analysis?

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#155

Post by godelski »

throwawaygh wrote: post #142
godelski wrote: post #99

Looking at all these comments, did no one watch Minority Report ? The whole film was about the difficulties and ethics of "precrime" and arresting people before they even committed a crime. Obviously we aren't doing that here, but stories often exaggerate a bit. I'd also like to add another good series that explores this topic even more than Minority Report : Psycho-Pass . Psycho-Pass is more extreme in that there's…

> Obviously we aren't doing that here IDK. one year olds were added to CalGang database. People were added to the CalGang with no supporting evidence. The database was used to direct police resources and also for background checks for job applicants . So, you're entered into the database as a one year old (or a ten year old, or a 30 year old but for no good reason). Now you can't get a job. Predictably, you turn to w…

I meant specifically arresting people before they committed a crime. There is a fine line between that and putting someone under watch, but I think Minority Report was pointing out that this line might as well not exist.

Personally, I think putting someone under watch before they have committed a crime or there is reasonable suspicion that the person is about to commit a crime is unconstitutional. I do not think statistics is justification for "reasonable suspicion."

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#156

Post by treis »

basch wrote: post #111
godelski wrote: post #99

Looking at all these comments, did no one watch Minority Report ? The whole film was about the difficulties and ethics of "precrime" and arresting people before they even committed a crime. Obviously we aren't doing that here, but stories often exaggerate a bit. I'd also like to add another good series that explores this topic even more than Minority Report : Psycho-Pass . Psycho-Pass is more extreme in that there's…

I like to bring Then Now up everytime precrime comes up. Until it goes off the rails in the end, its one of my favorite articles of all time. The paragraphs I yanked below, dont do its craziness justice. https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/78691781-c9b7... "But the oddest is STATIC-99. It's a way of predicting whether sex offenders are likely to commit crimes again after they have been released. In America…

The options here are having the judge make the decision based on their gut feeling or they can make it based on data. It's really hard for me to believe that gut feeling is better than data.

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#157

Post by jayd16 »

Miner49er wrote: post #75
kadabra9 wrote: post #3

Honest question here. Are these neighborhoods “over policed” because their residents commit more crimes, or do the residents commit more crimes because their neighborhood is “over policed”?

I think the real answer is both. The fact is, lower income neighborhoods do have more crime. That's just common sense. People do what they have to to survive. This results in heavier policing, which then creates a cycle. You put people in prison for a felony, and when they come out they don't have many options. They're in a worse place then when they went in. Not many places hire prior felons. So then they end up com…

>The fact is, lower income neighborhoods do have more crime. That's just common sense.

Not so fast. Middle class areas might commit more felony drug crimes (marijuana possession).

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#158

Post by augustt »

jasonv wrote: post #14
kadabra9 wrote: post #3

Honest question here. Are these neighborhoods “over policed” because their residents commit more crimes, or do the residents commit more crimes because their neighborhood is “over policed”?

We have data on the incarceration rates of Americans as a whole, versus other countries. I think the current activist climate is in response to the fact that the status quo is built on the premise that all that befalls the troubled populations in the US is always because they deserve it, and they brought it upon themselves. And therefore, all the prevailing cultural/ policing/ political/ fiscal positions that have be…

Of course it depends on which troubled population. For rural white poor people all their problems are framed as being from external uncontrollable pressures – they're losing jobs because of globalization, they're in an opioid epidemic because of pharma. Their struggles are not just dismissed as personal responsibility failures.

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#159

Post by curiousgeorgio »

riazrizvi wrote: post #63

> Used by police across the United States for almost a decade, predictive policing relies on algorithms to interpret police records, analyzing arrest or parole data to send officers to target chronic offenders, or identifying places where crime may occur. The promise of the software made in a sales pitch or on the website, is a far cry from the reality of what such software delivers. That's fine when it's business, t…

Hannah Fry's book, "Hello World: How to be Human in the Age of the Machine" explores this topic in a balanced and thoughtful way. Of course algorithms aren't perfect, but they are definitely useful tools that should be combined with human expertise.

> humans do a far better job at real-world operations

The book points to several examples (specifically in law enforcement and criminal justice) where common sense tells us this is true ("humans do a far better job"), but statistics show otherwise. Human judgement is helpful to a degree, but without tools like these algorithms provide, it's actually far worse, and subject to all kinds of biases.

The question is, if a particular area statistically has more crime, does it really matter whether it's a human or an algorithm making the judgement to send officers there more often? I know it's taboo to talk about (at least in the past few weeks), but police presence overwhelmingly helps reduce crime, so lets be smart about how, when, and where to deploy more law enforcement. Let's use data-based tools to help inform our decisions, but let's also use human judgement to understand where those tools might fall short and act accordingly. In large part, that comes down to having data experts audit the tools and educate those who use them of their shortcomings.

Re: Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first

#160

Post by QuotedForTruth »

Havoc wrote: post #85

>to send officers to target chronic offenders, or identifying places where crime may occur. Those are two very different things in my mind. Targeting individuals is very Minority Report and definitely not cool. Focusing on problematic areas seems like good policing common sense though? A bit like the local nightclub near me has a police car chilling in front of it every Friday night because there are always drunks sl…

Are they actually focusing on problematic areas or just areas that they previously focused on? Wherever the most police resources are spent, you will have the most crime. That then justifies spending more resources there. The algorithm may not be racist, but it is guaranteed to perpetuate our objectively racist policing of the past.
Post reply on HN