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

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

#411

Post by threatofrain » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 11:55 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…

Isn’t Chicago also where they discovered a police black site that had been operating for years? What’s the story here?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-poli...

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

#412

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 11:58 PM UTC

Misdicorl wrote: post #387

Misdicorl wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's a worrying trend in the conversation these days that has shifted from "there's a serious problem with racism in how police go about their job" to "we need less police". Folks in neighborhoods living with the constant threat of gang violence don't have the luxury to sit in their aeron chairs and argue about defunding the police. They face the very real threat of themselves or their loved ones being shot on th…

I'm done responding to the FUD hydra here. If someone wants to come up with a single consistent argument for why above isn't bs, I'll engage with them

We're all on the same side here. We all want more opportunity and more safety for everyone, especially those who have the least of either. Talking past one another and not reading the best intentions behind each comment hinders that shared goal.

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

#413

Post by UnpossibleJim » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #367

UnpossibleJim wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you're describing is a reform of America's drug laws, not of America's criminal prediction problem and they shouldn't be conflated. Police already use prediction models, they just do it in their heads and inaccurately with much more bias and have a harder time adjusting those bias'. I'm all for changing drug laws and trying to reduce recidivism through counseling and means other than pure imprisonment, but that'…

Drug laws are one example but by no means the only one. I've been on police ride-alongs where police watch a "suspicious" (i.e. poor) looking car as it passes them heading in the opposite direction. Oh look! They have a tail light out, we can pull them over. Then we can shine a flashlight in their backseat and see a bulge under a blanket. We can ask them certain questions that will either make us suspicious, or give…

All of that is personal bias enforced by police. None of that can be balanced out for, and I don't understand how that's in the scope of this conversation, to be honest. With predictive police distribution (for lack of a better term), which would be placing patrols in high criminal areas (and for the sake of argument, let's put this at victim crimes, like sexual assault - tend to happen when bars let out around the most bar dense areas), an increased police presence putting patrols there would by there very nature reduce some sexual assault and drunk driving, statistically. People would be more likely to call an Uber, out of shear fear based reaction, and less likely to dump out into the street and beat the crap out of each other or sexually assault a woman in public. This is all done unconsciously anyway, but weights can be adjusted on a machine model int predictive modeling to try and remove the race bias out as much as possible, where as when such predictive modeling is done inside an officer's mind, unconscious bias is an ever present problem where weights cannot be adjusted as easily, if at all. If that makes sense.

A machine model of police deployment just makes for a more transparent model, so long as it isn't kept as a black box, or referred to as strictly "AI". If we arm our society with basic understanding of statistical maths and scientific grounding, they'll stop looking at these things as magic and relying on anecdotal experience. No offense meant.

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

#414

Post by stx » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:05 AM UTC

momokoko wrote: post #397

cptskippy wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a worrying trend in the conversation these days that has shifted from "there's a serious problem with racism in how police go about their job" to "we need less police". The conversations aren't about less police, they're about defunding the police and putting that money to better use. If the police choose to reduce their numbers in order to afford riot gear, tear gas guns, armored personnel carriers, warrio…

> Throwing police at the problem of gang violence hasn't solved it. It hasn't made the neighborhoods safer. That is not true. We have solid data from New York during the Giuliani era and more recently Camden, NJ. Whether or not we agree with how they accomplished that is another matter. For example in New York a massive increase in arrests for nonviolent crime and much more proactively policing in order to check for…

Some of the reduction on crime may have come at the cost of racially biased stop and frisk.

This data shows 9 out of 10 people stopped were innocent. It also heavily showed that black and latino people were stopped much more frequently. https://www.nyclu.org/en/Stop-and-Frisk-data

I am glad that stop and frisk was ruled unconstitutional. https://civilrights.org/edfund/resource/nypds-infamous-stop-...

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

#415

Post by nitrogen » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:07 AM UTC

briandear wrote: post #370

r00fus wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A rape investigation should be done by a social worker? Are they trained criminal investigators? Is a social worker familiar with the rules of criminal evidence? The job of the police is to investigate crimes and present evidence to the DA. For welfare checks or mental illness incidents, then of course a social worker or analogue could be a better choice. For investigating criminal acts, that’s specifically what poli…

It would be perfectly possible to have people who are trained to preserve evidence who are not also traditional police. E.g. a medical examiner of some kind. You want someone to work with traumatized victims delicately, and a uniformed cop with a sidearm is not the ideal presence in that case. I don't want to get into suspect present/absent/whatever; but this type of crime isn't necessarily done by a random stranger in every case.

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

#416

Post by snowwrestler » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:08 AM UTC

tasuki wrote: post #350

snowwrestler wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that the police can pull you over at any time for no reason at all, and you are still required to follow their orders. There is no remedy available in real-time. The law says that you must always follow police instructions. So if the police pull you over for no reason, and handcuff you on the side of the road, you must submit to the handcuffing. If they demand to search your car, you must submit to tha…

That was a good and very moving article. I don't understand though: why was the officer reprimanded for his actions?

I think it’s because he did not have a legal reason to do that traffic stop.

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

#417

Post by tick_tock_tick » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:11 AM UTC

Misdicorl wrote: post #393

chaostheory wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be one of the reasons why https://www.npr.org/2018/12/12/675359781/americas-growing-co... https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national-politics/the-... It will only get worse. I wonder if AI and robotics will need to be used in the future assuming that the police shortage trend continues or gets even worse?

Or we could address the root problem behind the vast majority of crime; systemic poverty.

I'm not convinced that systemic poverty is the cause. Plenty of poorer counties and non urban, but just a poor, areas in the USA don't have these high violent crime rates.

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

#418

Post by stx » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:13 AM UTC

longtimegoogler wrote: post #401

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…

I agree, but I don't think the answer is pull the police out of predominantly black neighborhoods, which seems to be the motivation for shutting this program down. Better training, more black officers, more rules around the use of force seem like better options. Of course, I don't really know what the people in these neighborhoods want so I am open to some alternatives, but ranting about predictive policing doesn't s…

I think the answer is to filter police who may have tendency to violence and racism out of the police force. There have been police who violate rights and the police departments keep them on even after the department or city pays huge settlements.

From my understanding police are able to leave departments and not necessarily have their complaint history follow them to new departments. So if they have racked up complaints then they could move to a new department and essentially have a clean record.

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

#419

Post by boring_twenties » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:16 AM UTC

tasuki wrote: post #350

snowwrestler wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that the police can pull you over at any time for no reason at all, and you are still required to follow their orders. There is no remedy available in real-time. The law says that you must always follow police instructions. So if the police pull you over for no reason, and handcuff you on the side of the road, you must submit to the handcuffing. If they demand to search your car, you must submit to tha…

That was a good and very moving article. I don't understand though: why was the officer reprimanded for his actions?

Wondering the same thing. I guess we are to assume that there was no stolen car, but then why wouldn't the author just state that? And in fact, wouldn't that warrant more than a reprimand?

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

#420

Post by sacks2k » Sat, Jun 27, 2020, 12:19 AM 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.…

"Since racism is systemic"

You can't just say this without actual proof. The George Floyd killing was a tragedy, but not proof of systemic racism. On top of this, the officer involved (who actually knew George Floyd prior to killing him) is being brought up on charges, which is the exact opposite of what happens in a system that has systemic racism.

"Inference (ML) predicts the future from the past. If the past is racist"

Predictive policing only gives you an idea of where crime might occur based on previous crimes happening in the area and other factual data.

Innocent people weren't being arrested in mass based on what the models tell them. Officers will send out a few more patrols to areas that historically have more crime based on these models and they will most likely arrest more as a result.

This is a good thing and actually reduces the crime rate. Removing all of these systems on top of making it harder for the average person to defend themselves with a firearm will only result in the loss of innocent life and encourage more crime in mostly minority areas of the country.

"If cops arrest more black people per capita, then send the cops to black neighborhoods and have them follow black parolees. The system works (according to an objective function which maximizes arrests.) Remove racism and send the cops to white neighborhoods. Now the cops don't arrest as many people. The system fails. So I think it's likely that if you remove racist policing from predictive policing, you get the null hypothesis."

There is a bigger police presence in black neighborhoods because more crime happens there and as a result, more African Americans will be arrested.

If we want to stop this, we need to get to the root of the problem instead of blaming everything else.

Calling it 'systemic racism' is just another way of creating a bias against an entire group of people without having any actual proof to back it up. It also allows for the complete absolving of personal responsibility.

I feel like this is the beginning of the war on science because the results are politically incorrect.

It's like a new woke religion and if you question the god of racism, you will have your entire life taken away from you (job, friends, and family).

The only reason this nonsense persists is because the silent majority are too afraid to speak up and have everything taken away from them.