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

631–640 of 643 posts

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

#631

Post by nsonha »

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.…

> 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.

You started off with a really strong point but then immediately narrowed it down to race. The fundamental issue with this is, foremost, that such a system limits second chances and is used to discriminate against people with a criminal past. It's normalized in our society and shouldn't be.

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

#632

Post by fennecfoxen »

p49k wrote: post #619
fennecfoxen wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine arguing for a better world, instead of arguing about what your slogan means. You might be able to secure majority support for your policy proposal, instead of... checks YouGov poll again ... 16% support, for the phrase "defund the police".

It’s also a nascent movement so it’s not surprising that many people don’t understand it. There are many successful policies that began with very low public support.

Yeah but the policy proposals spelled out earn actual majority support in polls, instead of tiny-minority support. It's a terrible self-defeating name/slogan.

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

#633

Post by thelean12 »

sib wrote: post #404
thelean12 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 t…

Well... i haven't read the book, but it is widely cited: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ The author claims the average adults commits three Federal crimes a day.

I've had this conversation before and no one has been able to defend their position outside of "there's a book with this title" or "but weed though".

Even looking at the reviews of that book, it seems like the author doesn't even argue the title. It's just specific cases of people getting screwed over in court. (Which of course happens, I'm not arguing against that.)

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

#634

Post by adamsea »

adamsea wrote: post #502
briandear wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The baby’s already been tossed my friend. The police actually have a terrible record when it comes to handling the crime of rape. They downplay it, deprioritize it, etc. Read about the massive backlog of rape kits. Literally - rape crimes that are reported to the police, and that they deprioritize or ignore. https://www.rainn.org/articles/addressing-rape-kit-backlog

I'd love to hear from the folks who downvoted this, so I could improve this comment. Because there's a lot of empirical evidence that police departments (and our court system, to be fair - it's a social issue) historically have not handled rape cases well.

So, I'm all for reasonable discussion and receiving feedback about what was unclear or counterproductive in what I said.

But, I encourage future readers to take silence as a sign that people really didn't have any facts or logic to back up their side of the argument ; ).

Even though that might be a bit unfair, since it's not as if everyone is on here all the time.

But I think it's important for technologists - scientists, engineers, etc - to embrace their role in society at large and the power we have.

And part of that involves discussing social issues, as frustrating as some of us might find discussing these non-quantifiable fields.

Hey, it can't be worse than having to talk about the latest hot new addition to the JS ecosystem ;)

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

#635

Post by gotostatement »

mtrower wrote: post #601
gotostatement wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The biggest reason why people join gangs is because they're there. It's a cultural problem above all else. I'm going to challenge you to find a citation to back up this belief before you continue going through life believing it, because it's a dangerous one, rooted in ignorance, that causes racism.

> that causes racism. Elaborate?

to say that the reason people join gangs is cultural implies that it's a "bad culture" problem. the reality of why people join gangs is more complicated and includes overpolicing, economic deprivation, legacies of slavery and racism, and other factors. but if we say "it's just their culture" then we commit a fallacy that leads us to say "black people are doing this to themselves because of their bad qualities X,Y,Z", and we may also end up saying "black people are poor and disenfranchised for the same bad culture problems as lead them to form gangs". this is a classic fallacy, throughout human history, in which oppressed groups of people have their character impugned based on ignorant readings of the ways that they cope with and adapt to their situation, and thus are blamed for their own oppression

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

#636

Post by gotostatement »

mtrower wrote: post #610
hellomyguys wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm wrong but wouldn't their interpretation of chattel slavery in America be that it wasn't the beginning of systemic racism in this country, but purely oppressive system that was exploited by racists? It seems like an odd distinction to make even if I agree that there exists systematic oppression against many groups in addition to systemic racism. >In other words, the problem is not that there are racist peopl…

> Even this just doesn't fully explain away systemic oppression that impacts people on a day-to-day basic like Black people not getting job interviews due to their name sounding Black or job offers because the interviewers have unconscious bias. In this scenario, is it not the racist individual (the interviewer) impacting minority success, rather than the system itself? (I take no position here as to the existence of…

good question. The individual is racist, but he/she is probably just racist in the same way that almost everyone is: the society that they grew up in created associations in his nervous system that black people are more likely to be incompetent, unprofessional, untrustworthy, or whatever. Furthermore, the individual may be conditioned by society to believe that certain innocuous elements of black culture or mannerisms somehow indicate an inferiority - they may consider black speech mannerisms as a sign of lower intelligence, or they may consider black styles of hair to be unprofessional. These are all part of a cultural system that stigmatizes blackness and black people. It's not the same kind of systemic racism as racist rules/bureaucracy, but it's still part of a system of racist beliefs and customs.

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

#637

Post by kebman »

pininja wrote: post #517
kebman wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Domestic issues are often met with social workers where I'm from. They gain early detection and access, by registering and treating social issues such as poverty, health or mental related issues. A lot of people then have their lives changed for the better, so they never fall into crime. On a whole, this is good for society, since it gets the benefit of less crime and violence, and so society becomes safer. On top of…

Where is this wonderful place, and when can I move there?

It's Norway, though many European countries have similar policies. It's not cool to be met with social workers, though. It means you've basically failed at life.

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

#638

Post by astrophysician »

fsckboy wrote: post #339
astrophysician wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 incomin…

> 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?

There's a difference between a team of academics/statisticians analyzing policing and crime data and then debating the resulting conclusions, and a widespread set of predictive policing tools that are designed to be used by feet on the ground. The former is great! and important. The latter is the problem.

> 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.

The entire point I'm trying to make is that it's very _difficult_ to figure out what your data biases are because usually the data is _all you have_. My point isn't that I have "special knowledge" about where the biases are. I do not have any such special knowledge. Domain experts will have more "special knowledge" and by that I mean through their experience they will have hopefully learned difficult lessons about the limitations of certain types of data available to them, but even they will not have perfect knowledge about where all of the biases in their data are.

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

again, I do not know! Do you? Do you feel 100% sure to say that the propensity of someone to dial 911 would not be dependent on socioeconomic factors, or on the nature of the crime, or on the alleged perpetrator? Do white people feel more comfortable calling 911 on black or brown people than black or brown people calling 911 at all?

You can try to correct for certain biases if you have access to all of the relevant info (e.g. in the above example, we could in fact try to answer this question if (1) we had the actual background rate of crimes being committed, independent of 911 calls, (2) all of the relevant information (e.g. race/income of caller and perpetrator, the crime type, etc.), and even then we would be missing other biases that we may not be consciously trying to "correct" for). But even this is subject to lots of error (how do we get the actual baseline level of crimes? hint: you can't), and will miss other factors that we haven't thought of.

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

#639

Post by whakim »

unishark wrote: post #612
whakim wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of whether you think it's a "weak link", this isn't a logical proof where you can disprove one statement rendering the entire proof invalid. Rather, you have to disprove each piece of evidence for systemic racism in order to disprove it exists. Your argument is mostly "whataboutism" - you point out that terrible things have happened to groups of people in the past and those things have inter-generational e…

I'd call it reductio ad absurdum personally, an application of your logic elsewhere to reach absurd conclusions. And the existence of inter-generational effects are the undisputed facts I started with, not the conclusions reached via your logic, which are that the existence of these effects support the charge of systemic war/famine/etc. Whether it's just semantics depends on what you think the supposed existence of t…

Not really. You've said that because the difference between the intergenerational harm caused by "other crappy things" and 400 years' worth of racism is only quantitative, the intergenerational effects of "other crappy things" ought to be considered systemic. Your logic implies that because driving your car at 5mph and 100mph is only a quantitative difference, driving at 5mph ought to be considered "speeding." Or because the difference between heating cold water 1 degree and 100 degrees is only quantitative, cold water heated 1 degree ought to be considered "steam." Quantitative differences eventually become qualitative differences; that much should be trivially obvious.

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

#640

Post by unishark »

whakim wrote: post #639
unishark wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd call it reductio ad absurdum personally, an application of your logic elsewhere to reach absurd conclusions. And the existence of inter-generational effects are the undisputed facts I started with, not the conclusions reached via your logic, which are that the existence of these effects support the charge of systemic war/famine/etc. Whether it's just semantics depends on what you think the supposed existence of t…

Not really. You've said that because the difference between the intergenerational harm caused by "other crappy things" and 400 years' worth of racism is only quantitative, the intergenerational effects of "other crappy things" ought to be considered systemic. Your logic implies that because driving your car at 5mph and 100mph is only a quantitative difference, driving at 5mph ought to be considered "speeding." Or bec…

Ah I missed that little gem. So genocide would be the safe slow driving extreme in this analogy?
Post reply on HN