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

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

#291

Post by nwienert » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:24 PM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #277

bhntr3 wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yea, both of these points are so bad as to be almost parody.

Not only should you never, ever base your beliefs based on avoiding the discomfort of being an outsider, but you also should never, ever, use majority opinion as some sort of proof of... anything.

If you did, you’d have advocated for slavery if only you’d been born south of the Mason Dixon years ago.

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

#292

Post by metrokoi » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:24 PM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #229

onetimeusename wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the claim when data is said to include systemic racism and bias? Is it that race data does indeed predict higher crime but that biased policing causes the crime rate to be misreported as higher because police only focus their attention on certain areas? Is it that police actually cause crime due to racist beliefs so that they must in some way entice crimes to be committed? Is it that crimes are equal between…

For myriad of reasons, we know clearly that controlling for no other factors, crime is higher among black populations. So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. It is not ok to assume that someone might be more likely guilty or more likely to commit a crime based on the color of their skin. Even if you had perfect historical data. It's j…

>So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism.

But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. How can recognizing an obvious fact be racism? Aren't you also racist for recognizing that crime is higher among black populations? It's racist to treat a black individual as if they have committed a crime or treat them differently because of it, not to recognize that a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime. I don't understand how you would come to that conclusion.

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

#293

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:24 PM UTC

jjeaff wrote: post #229

onetimeusename wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the claim when data is said to include systemic racism and bias? Is it that race data does indeed predict higher crime but that biased policing causes the crime rate to be misreported as higher because police only focus their attention on certain areas? Is it that police actually cause crime due to racist beliefs so that they must in some way entice crimes to be committed? Is it that crimes are equal between…

For myriad of reasons, we know clearly that controlling for no other factors, crime is higher among black populations. So to extrapolate that any one person is more likely to commit a crime because they are black is the definition of racism. It is not ok to assume that someone might be more likely guilty or more likely to commit a crime based on the color of their skin. Even if you had perfect historical data. It's j…

[deleted]

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

#294

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

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…

"I would love to know what the ideal or even acceptable policing policies are"

Some ideas...

A corp of well-trained, unarmed individuals to respond the vast majority of non-violent police calls.

Legalize drugs and sex work to dramatically curtail the amount of "crimes" and associated "police work".

Zero tolerance penalties for abuses of power by armed police. Instead of LEOs receiving less severe penalties when they break the law, mandate more severe penalties.

Plus a whole raft of other, popular ideas like banning choke holds, requiring highly regulated body cams, ending no-knock warrants in most cases, reforming or ending bail for low-level crimes, reform qualified immunity for armed government employees, the list goes on.

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

#295

Post by strbean » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:29 PM UTC

throwawaygh wrote: post #167

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…

It's not just putting them under watch. It's putting them under watch while also using the same database to screen job applicants . Pushing someone out of the legal economy and watching closely has an almost guaranteed outcome. Doing those two things simultaneously is functionally equivalent to either a) starving them to death or b) precrime.

It's worse than precrime. With precrime, you might never be predicted to commit a crime. The situation you describe is basically a) starve to death or b) go to jail.

I wonder if you could make a case for entrapment here?

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

#296

Post by astrophysician » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:29 PM UTC

fsckboy wrote: post #272

astrophysician wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 everybod…

no one is objecting to Bayes' Theorem here at all. I am directly addressing your argument: there is _inherent_ bias in policing data, and doing a Bayesian analysis will make it very easy to fool ourselves into trusting the results while also allowing everyone in the room to absolve themselves of taking any responsibility for the consequences of doing so. Pretending we know how to debias policing data _broadly_ (i.e. we know how to do it in every locale and in every instance that the data will actually be _used by practicing law enforcement professionals_) is a perfect recipe for disaster.

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

#297

Post by tomnipotent » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:30 PM UTC

mytailorisrich wrote: post #147

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…

Predictive policing does nothing more than sending policing resources where crime is more likely based on statistical models. It does not racially discriminate and it is not racist. It does not harm anyone. I feel that this is posturing and shooting the messenger. If crime is statistically higher in "black neighbourhoods" the issue will not be solved by pretending it isn't. If the technology does not work then of cou…

> It does not racially discriminate and it is not racist. It does not harm anyone.

This is a dangerously irresponsible statement.

If police are disproportionally spending time in specific neighborhoods, and arrests are disproportionally made from that population vs. actual crimes committed, this will be captured and reinforced in the predictions.

So yes, it's racists and it harms people.

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

#298

Post by strbean » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:32 PM UTC

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...

And somehow in this small sleepy town, the same 2 blocks have consistently been the "you can always get heroine/meth/crack here" blocks for about 30 years, and they can't predict the need for a squad car parked there.

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

#299

Post by mytailorisrich » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:33 PM UTC

tomnipotent wrote: post #297

mytailorisrich wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Predictive policing does nothing more than sending policing resources where crime is more likely based on statistical models. It does not racially discriminate and it is not racist. It does not harm anyone. I feel that this is posturing and shooting the messenger. If crime is statistically higher in "black neighbourhoods" the issue will not be solved by pretending it isn't. If the technology does not work then of cou…

> It does not racially discriminate and it is not racist. It does not harm anyone. This is a dangerously irresponsible statement. If police are disproportionally spending time in specific neighborhoods, and arrests are disproportionally made from that population vs. actual crimes committed, this will be captured and reinforced in the predictions. So yes, it's racists and it harms people.

So you're saying that more police presence is harming people. How? If there's no crime there are no arrests or reports after all...

Your reply is rather aggressive for not apparent reason. As I said this is highly political in the middle of the current hysteria.

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

#300

Post by wjsetzer » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 8:34 PM UTC

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 heard a Reply All episode about the use of CompStat in NYC, which is just a manual algorithm for predictive policing. It started as a useful tool to prevent crime, but devolved into racial profiling as officers began to downgrade crimes in their reports to make their numbers look better, until eventually it resulted in racial profiling and arresting people on false charges.