Santa Cruz, California bans predictive policing in U.S. first • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by kube-system » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:06 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #185

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…

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…

There are secondary effects to "tough on crime policies", and more severe punishments do not necessarily increase deterrence effects on crime, and could even cause more crime. There is a very complex relationship between the factors that influence crime which is likely anything but linear.

"Tough on crime" statutes were implemented across much of the US 40 years ago, and the results we've seen are anything but a success story. Sure, crime has dropped, but at the expense of becoming the world's #1 country by incarceration and causing downstream societal effects as we lose economic productivity, rip apart families (and potentially create new criminals), and create public distrust of police.

Some might say that is a reasonable price to pay for a decrease in crime, but that doesn't hold water when we it compare to the rest of the western world who saw the same or even better drop in crime without all of the side-effects of the 'tough-on-crime' policies. Globalization, technology, and a drop in poverty caused this drop in crime, not 'tough-on-crime' policies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_drop

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

#272

Post by fsckboy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

astrophysician wrote: post #144

fsckboy wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is a premature application of software. maybe, but you have no idea yourself so your fear does not carry enough weight to carry that statement. It's basically like you are saying "it's too early to try Bayesian policing" when in fact Bayesian policing might be a great idea, and it was a great idea 10 years ago too. Conditional probability, if there have been a lot of rapes in a 2 block radius, do you think it…

Yea but you're ignoring biases in the data that are difficult or impossible to disentangle from the underlying effects. What happens when you see an area with 50% higher violent crime rate? Is that because there are a large number of crimes? Or is it because it's a neighborhood that is disproportionately targeted by police? How do you even attempt to control for that? It's not that Bayesian stats can't help or can't…

I was arguing that it's not "premature" to analyze crime and policing data statistically. If we include and add in your insights--and I think it's foolish to think crime experts haven't thought of them before, but if they haven't:

I would still argue that it's not "premature" to look at crime and policing data; in fact, I'd say it's high time we did it.

tl;dr you are not addressing what I was arguing

(and to everybody else here, I was not advocation Bayes Theorem, I was relying on it as a baseline truth for synecdoche for statistical analysis. If you want to object to Bayes Theorem, that's on you, it wasn't my point...)

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

#273

Post by lostapathy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

godelski wrote: post #268

lostapathy wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like cops can pull you over for simple possession of weed in your glove box. They pull people over for a traffic infraction and then find the weed, illegal gun, etc.

I once looked up the arrest records in my local area. The number one reason for arrest was "driving without a license." (with no other infractions listed). I'm not saying that this was racial profiling, but I'm not denying that people with Hispanic last names accounted for the vast majority of these arrests. I am at least implying that it is a little suspicious and maybe requires a little more nuance and closer inspe…

Right. Generally, when somebody gets pulled over for a trivial violation and then something bigger is found during the stop, they only write a ticket for the bigger violation. Less paperwork that way and has the end result they were looking for.

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

#274

Post by r00fus » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:09 PM UTC

alfalfasprout wrote: post #232

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.…

I agree that, in general, you're going to have biased training data (with a bias that's difficult to measure) and so inherently policing recommendations will be biased. This is particularly problematic when it comes to arrests for crimes that are inherently 'selective' in their enforcement. Eg; drug-related crimes, public intoxication, loitering, trespassing. But the fact is... violent (fatal and nonfatal) crimes do…

From studies I’ve read it is noted that most of those calls could be handled by a social worker or other non-violent responder.

The problem is the police budget has dwarfed and subsumed all non-violent requests as well.

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

#275

Post by chippy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:10 PM UTC

jmspring wrote: post #191

The funny thing about the origins of PredPol - a sitting councilman and a liaison with SCPD were both part of the early team at PredPol and those connections helped encourage Santa Cruz to adopt the technology. SCPD, in general, is one of the more level headed and compassionate police departments I've known members on and they've had a history of lack of city support (it was better for a few years) over the last 3 de…

is there anything a resident can do? is the city run by the democrat or republican? is the pd or mayor a democrat? Is the police chief an electable position? (im in the UK and have been there for a day or 2, it seems pretty left wing)

how can a normal person living in the city use democracy to make real change?

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

#276

Post by metrokoi » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:13 PM UTC

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…

I agree, this type of reasoning strikes me as bulling or shaming people into believing racism is systemic. The entire conversation about racism is becoming more and more about shaming or threatening people into line, not convincing them with truths. Even pointing this out may bring up accusations of racism. Moral shaming or threatening does get results so I can't argue with that, but I don't see it as sustainable.

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

#277

Post by whatshisface » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

bhntr3 wrote: post #245

whatshisface wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>should not feel comfortable socially expressing that position anymore

What people feel safe in expressing, when "safe" means "safe from peers disagreeing with you," is a terrible reason to believe something. If I came back with a poll of my local area that said all of my peers thought racism wasn't systemic, would you council me to agree with them? That's an extremely dysfunctional way of thinking.

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

#278

Post by lobotryas » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

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…

You wrote a lot but pointed out none of the flaws of this tech. What’s so alarming about drawing a conclusion that more police resources need to be allocated to a place that has a history of criminal activity?

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

#279

Post by dorgo » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:15 PM UTC

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…

>because software becomes a black box.

Is the brain of a detective not a black box?

>But here we are talking about people's lives, far stricter processes should be in place

Yes. And I want these stricter processes to protect me from software as well as from humans. Why discriminate between software and humans?

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

#280

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:15 PM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #102

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…

> This is a premature application of software. maybe, but you have no idea yourself so your fear does not carry enough weight to carry that statement. It's basically like you are saying "it's too early to try Bayesian policing" when in fact Bayesian policing might be a great idea, and it was a great idea 10 years ago too. Conditional probability, if there have been a lot of rapes in a 2 block radius, do you think it…

Hmm. You make it sound like very new idea and tool is worthy of equal and fair consideration. If a polician today said they introducing No Crime Left behind, where cops randomly select time and place to swarm, would a rational person even dream of debating its merits?