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

241–250 of 643 posts

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

#241

Post by godelski »

riazrizvi wrote: post #228
godelski wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we talk about this I think we really need to talk about Blackstone's Ratio [0] which was clearly an influence for the founding fathers. We're talking about peoples' lives and freedom, how highly do you value these? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio

Thanks for introducing me to this. Personally I think instead Schrodinger's Cat is more appropriate to legal policy. Measurement effects the result. In that excessive policing, where a people are treated with extreme prejudice as likely offenders, creates more offenders. Because the incentive to be a good citizen is eroded by your social guardians.

Having a physics degree and having worked as an engineer, I do not think Schrodinger's Cat applies here (often we in the physics community are frustrated in how SC is misrepresented).

Really what Blackstone's ratio is discussing is failure design. In good engineering practices we want things to fail in specific ways. So we actually design failure. For example, if you are building a skyscraper you want to design your building to collapse in on itself as to not take out other surrounding buildings. The trade-off here is that you aren't building the optimal structure, but overall you have greater safety (obviously you still have to meet base structural and safety conditions).

This is a better analogy than SC, which is about the complexity of statistics and observation (which mind you doesn't need to be human nor have a consciousness). Really here we're talking about how we design failure in law. "When laws fail, what should happen?" Blackstone's has nothing to do with measurement and observation (which mean more in the QM world than what they mean in our macro world or in engineering. We physicists aren't always great at explaining. Sorry :( )

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

#242

Post by dsabanin »

socalnate1 wrote: post #211
WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #182

With what seems to be nothing but criticism of policing policies, I would love to know what the ideal or even acceptable policing policies are, presuming that any policing will be accepted. The most simple minded can be critics, but what is the alternative? What happens when the lawless mob and criminals want to break and enter your home and take your things and burn down your life? It's easy enough when it's the "ot…

"What happens when the lawless mob and criminals want to break and enter your home and take your things and burn down your life?" Uhm what? Is this a common problem in your life? If this question is asked seriously, here is a serious answer: https://theweek.com/articles/918143/what-america-learn-from-...

Well, not yet…

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

#243

Post by bronson »

dv_dt wrote: post #208
tootie wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC has used analytics since 1993 and it's widely credited as contributing to the incredible drop in crime. I don't buy for a second that ending these kind of programs will help anything. Certainly we can decrease brutality by sending police into areas with no conflicts but that defeats the whole purpose of policing. We need effective and aggressive law enforcement as much as ever. We need to root out the worst abuse…

Crime rates nationally dropped also during the same time - and not all areas had the same analytics. It's really not clear if the reductions were from the NYC stats or in particular "agressive" law enforcement.

True, CompStat is not at all "widely credited" with contributing to the nationwide drop in crime. Even its contribution to NYC's drop is debatable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat#Critique

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

#244

Post by godelski »

daenz wrote: post #238
godelski wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're also missing the point. I was responding to a comment that said we should dismiss drug related crimes. Maybe that is missing now that the person removed that comment but essentially they said > we're not talking about drug, we're talking about violent crime. So my response was more in the lines of "we can't dismiss drugs when they are a big factor." Note: this is also why HN tries to prevent editing, becau…

>Here's the breakdown of why people are in jail: Your stats are not why people are in jail nor prison. Your stats represent an extremely narrow selection of prisoners meeting the "federal" criteria. Your information is misleading to make it look like most people in jail are due to drug offenses, which is factually untrue.

My point is that outright dismissing drug related charges is ludicrous. But it appears that the parent edited their comment to the point of removal so this context was lost. I have edited my response to clarify.

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

#245

Post by bhntr3 »

whatshisface wrote: post #193
bhntr3 wrote: post #184

The problem with predictive policing is in the name. Inference (ML) predicts the future from the past. If the past is racist, then inference will create a racist future. Since racism is systemic[1], especially when it comes to policing, predictive policing is actively working against an anti-racist future. There may be statistical ways to factor out systemic racism. There are two reasons I don't think that works: 1.…

To [1]: Totally abstracted from anything you said, a poll that people believe something does not in any way resemble evidence that it is true. For example, only 8% of Jehovas Witnesses[2] believe that humans evolved. Is that evidence that JWs didn't evolve? "If you don't believe this you're in the minority now" has never in history been a good argument for anything, even if you are using it to try and prove something…

Of course that's true. I wasn't so much trying to provide evidence as to point out that people who felt comfortable saying "I'm not racist but I don't think this country is racist either" should not feel comfortable socially expressing that position anymore. Social proof may not be evidence but it is powerful in changing people's minds who might not be as receptive to facts and figures. I don't mind if people believe the right thing for the wrong reasons (at least these days with how anti-science a segment of the population seems to be.)

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

#246

Post by mattnewton »

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #154
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?

Disproportionate policing of a demographic is going to lead to disproportionate application of the law, both spurious and justified, to that demographic.

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

#247

Post by IndySun »

sneak wrote: post #195

> His administration will work with the police to “help eliminate racism in policing”, the seaside city’s first male African-American mayor said on his Facebook page, following a vote on Tuesday evening. Inconvenient fact: The only way to eliminate racism in policing is to eliminate human beings doing the policing. All humans have inherent bias. Racism, sexism, classism, and a whole host of other -isms will always be…

I wish we could eliminate worthless comments. Of course, technically it is true. But billions of decent human don't go around acting on that bias. However, violently biased men and women in uniform with guns and alloted power need to be removed, arrested in uniform, and charged, jailed, for disgracing the profession.

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

#248

Post by Aunche »

alpha_squared wrote: post #165
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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? Combined with the evidence of extreme LEO abuse of power, doesn't this reinforce the idea that certain people/neighborhoods become disproportionately affected? Isn't this exactly what the past few weeks…

If police with guns disproportionately hurt minorities that doesn't mean no police should be allowed to carry guns. You can justify drastic restrictions, but banning a tool altogether is being unnecessarily technophobic.

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

#249

Post by metrokoi »

lostapathy wrote: post #212
godelski wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 stat…

Everybody commits minor infractions of the law regularly. Putting someone under watch, by a cop who needs to report that he enforced something, is going to ensure they get picked up sooner or later. There's a saying to the effect that a good cop can find a reason to pull any car over if he follows it for just a couple minutes.

Do they? What are these minor infractions that would get picked up on? Likely drug or gun charges. Most people don't own guns illegal or use illegal drugs. The only common infraction I can think of is speeding, but that's not what these criminals are being picked up for. Cops don't follow a single individual around waiting for them to go 5 over the speed limit.

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

#250

Post by jberryman »

WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #182

With what seems to be nothing but criticism of policing policies, I would love to know what the ideal or even acceptable policing policies are, presuming that any policing will be accepted. The most simple minded can be critics, but what is the alternative? What happens when the lawless mob and criminals want to break and enter your home and take your things and burn down your life? It's easy enough when it's the "ot…

One answer is that: police don't do what you think they do, police are not effective at what you imagine their job to be, and police are not trusted to be effective (so much crime goes unreported):

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/03/01/most-violen...

Consider also that as you observe, even with the existence of policing as we know it, all manner of violent and property crime still exists.

Post reply on HN