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

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

#331

Post by wonderwonder » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:08 PM UTC

xd wrote: post #76

wonderwonder wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hear what you are saying but disagree to a point. How many of these people getting arrested for the serious crimes have pre existing arrests / convictions for minor crimes? Once you have a couple of minor arrests and you are in the system, finding a career and advancing yourself becomes increasingly difficult. I would make an uneducated assumption that if they had not gotten the minor infractions and had a future p…

In the UK we have what's know as youth offending services, the main aim of which is to keep youths out of the courts and criminal system by utilising more appropriate methods of disposal for minor offences like drug possession.

This seems like a great idea. We should not be essentially damning people to a much more challenging life due to youthful indiscretions. Obviously some crimes are worse than others.

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

#332

Post by hckr_news » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:11 PM UTC

metrokoi wrote: post #292

jjeaff wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> But it's true, a black individual is on average more likely to commit a crime.

What? Wasn't even sure whether to dignify this comment with a response yet here I am.

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

#333

Post by say_it_as_it_is » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

Big cities used to be really dangerous but crime was put under control by methods that are now under attack. Data-driven predictions of where crime will happen allows police to dedicate resources to locations where they will be most effective at preventing crime. Data-driven decision making is what drives every sector in society. It belongs in policing. This ban is a mistake. Unfortunately, the consequences of the ban won't be experienced until those who voted the rule into effect are long gone from office.

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

#334

Post by ReptileMan » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:13 PM UTC

Havoc wrote: post #176

ReptileMan wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is complicated at best. I think that in most jurisdictions seriously planing a crime is a crime in itself. >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 slugging it out. And what happens when said policemen block the entrance of the club and start patting down everyone leaving for pico or weed? A police presence can calm down an…

>what happens when said policemen block the entrance of the club Why on earth would they do that?

I have no idea, but some people are worried about that kind of behavior.

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

#335

Post by bhntr3 » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

nwienert wrote: post #291

whatshisface wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Here's the wikipedia article for the fallacious argument I used and which you're critiquing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Here is some statistical evidence for systemic racism: https://www.businessinsider.com/us-systemic-racism-in-charts... (Shockingly this is actually pretty good despite being from Business Insider)

Honestly, I'd just edit the link at this point if I could since it seems to have triggered so many people. My assumption, again, was that anyone who doesn't believe in systemic racism at this point is not going to be swayed by statistical evidence. I am not advocating that any critical thinker be persuaded by majority opinion.

Luckily we're all critical thinkers here and we crave statistical evidence. I assume that means we also all believe systemic racism is a problem in the US. But in case you're an outlier I hope that link helps.

That said, everything in that link has been true literally forever (for the US.) But opinions are only changing now. Maybe 30% of the United States didn't see those stats before now but I find that hard to believe. I think social proof, despite not being actual proof, is more powerful than you folks would like to believe it is.

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

#336

Post by banads » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:16 PM UTC

Misdicorl wrote: post #324

alfalfasprout wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Horseshit. Police response to violent incidents in 'problematic' neighborhoods is already extremely slow. The threat of gang violence is not mitigated by police response. The threat of gang violence is mitigated by providing much better options for people who would otherwise join gangs. Police presence is immaterial to the lack of gangs in affluent neighborhoods.

What is horseshit? Nothing in your response is contrary to anything the person said that you're responding to

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

#337

Post by sfj » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

QuotedForTruth wrote: post #160

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.

> The algorithm may not be racist, but it is guaranteed to perpetuate our objectively racist policing of the past.

Depends on how the algorithm is formulated. If it's based on number of crimes found, by policeman, by hour, then this would eliminate that concern (vs just number of crimes per hour).

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

#338

Post by thelean12 » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

wongarsu wrote: post #162

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…

Everyone does something criminal from time to time. Policing A more than B will lead to more arrests at place A, increasing their crime statistics, leading to more policing ... For example drug use is about equal between white and black Americans, but since black people are more strictly policed (more frequent in traffic stops etc) they are arrested and sentenced for drug use far more often than white Americans. [0]…

> Everyone does something criminal from time to time.

Everyone? Maybe this would be true if you'd include non-criminal offenses (those you'd get a ticket for). Most people in their lives will probably jay-walk, or speed, or get a parking ticket, or something else in this category.

But you're saying that everyone (I'll read this as "most people") will do something that would get them arrested if caught from time to time? That's an outlandish statement.

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

#339

Post by fsckboy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

astrophysician wrote: post #296

fsckboy wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

what are you arguing for? no analysis? or do you wish to change the analysis? Or why do you claim that analysis is premature to remain on topic?

saying "inherent bias" is very vague and has more value as a political dog whistle than anything else... unless you'd like to suggest what the biases are and point out how you have this special knowledge and other crime experts don't.

for example, what is the bias in incoming 911 calls?

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

#340

Post by r00fus » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

starkd wrote: post #285

r00fus wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure You can always separate out violent from non-violent events. The police are expected to deal with a whole community in a holistic way.

It's easy - when someone wants a well-check or reports mental health or substance abuse or maybe even rape, that should go to someone other than police.

Showing up with a gun to some events is guaranteed to make things worse.