Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

231–240 of 643 posts

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

#231
post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with that, but why aren't these types of statistical models and curve analysis being used to deploy drive by patrols? Some of this seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water, does it not? While I agree that it's way too soon for this sort of granularity, is it too soon to have 10 block, increased presence of troubled areas helped by statistical analysis?

Even assuming the models are good, what confidence do you have that the data is good?

There are a lot of opportunities for the data to skewed in a highly biased manner.

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

#232
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 happen at a much higher rate in poor neighborhoods. And black americans are calling the police at higher rates knowing full-well what that might imply [1](https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf). Anecdotally, when I lived in south side Chicago, when speaking to residents (that did not live in a predominantly affluent area like Hyde Park) one of the key complaints was that there simply wasn't enough police to respond to violent incidents.

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 the streets and statistically not by police.

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

#233
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except we are [0]. Here's the breakdown of why people are in jail (numbers rounded) - Drug offenses: 46% - Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 20% - Sex Offenses: 11% - Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 6% - Immigration: 5% - Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses: 5% - Robbery: 3% - Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses: 3% So drugs vs (WEA + BLPO + R + HAAKO) is 46% vs 39%. Last I checked 46 > 39, so yeah we are tal…

It is mind-blowing how misleading this is. You should really consider editing your post. The majority of people in state prisons are there for VIOLENT CRIMES, and the plurality of people in local jails are there for violent crimes. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

But you're also missing the point. I was responding to a comment that said we should dismiss drug related crimes. Maybe that is missing now that the person removed that comment but essentially they said

> we're not talking about drug, we're talking about violent crime.

So my response was more in the lines of "we can't dismiss drugs when they are a big factor."

Note: this is also why HN tries to prevent editing, because now the context of what I was responding to is completely lost.

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

#234

> 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. So... instead of using algorithms, how will the police decide where to patrol heaviest? Putting a human in charge of that seems like a great way to increase racial bias. Or am I misunderstanding what "predictive policing" is?

I'm very curious what "banning" predictive policing even means here. In the broadest sense, predictive policing is using data to inform where crime will happen in the future.

Is this to say you can't use historical trends to allocate police in a city? Should police be allocated only based on population size/density in a region?

Is using your knowledge of what neighborhoods tend to be "crime heavy" predictive? Are they crime heavy because of increased policing (you found more crime because you were looking) or because there really was more crime?

What is the line here?

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

#235
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…

[deleted]

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

#236
post #208
post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Crime rates nationally dropped also during the same time - and not all areas had the same analytics. It's really not clear if the reductions were from the NYC stats or in particular "agressive" law enforcement.

This is so utterly compelling a rebuttal that I can hardly believe the original argument was made in the first place. You can't argue that tool X led to outcome Y if everyone had the same outcome without tool X, and in fact the evidence then leads to the opposite causality: tool X is useless toward outcome Y.

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

#237

> 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…

In statistics there is a thing called bias, which can cause a lot of problems if not correctly handled.

An example of bias is historically most black people default on their loans. ML is deployed to predict if someone might default on a loan. Because ML does not understand bias, it sees the person is black and denies them for that, purely off of the fact that black people historically have defaulted more on their loans.

Bias is when ML sees something not relevant as a pattern and uses it as a feature to determine the future. Instead if race was filtered out, it might have seen historically most black people who got a loan were weak in other areas, like income or income stability or something else that actually factors in. It then could predict the future with a higher level of accuracy.

Police bias is worse than other industries, because it creates a feedback loop. If you think a black person is more likely to commit a crime, and you put more resources into that, then you're going to find more crime. This increases bias and it feeds on itself.

It seems the common fear on YC is the algorithms in predictive policing have a strong bias, causing problems. This is a legitimate risk, but imho not because of the algorithms but because of how they're used. They blindly give insights and police officers use this to increase bias, amplifying the issues we currently have.

On the NSA level the algorithms, which are not predictive policing, deal with bias much better and work quite well. They're scary good, better than having someone watching you at all times. Though, I guess that's a bit off topic.

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

#238
post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is mind-blowing how misleading this is. You should really consider editing your post. The majority of people in state prisons are there for VIOLENT CRIMES, and the plurality of people in local jails are there for violent crimes. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

But you're also missing the point. I was responding to a comment that said we should dismiss drug related crimes. Maybe that is missing now that the person removed that comment but essentially they said > we're not talking about drug, we're talking about violent crime. So my response was more in the lines of "we can't dismiss drugs when they are a big factor." Note: this is also why HN tries to prevent editing, becau…

>Here's the breakdown of why people are in jail:

Your stats are not why people are in jail nor prison. Your stats represent an extremely narrow selection of prisoners meeting the "federal" criteria. Your information is misleading to make it look like most people in jail are due to drug offenses, which is factually untrue.

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

#239
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. I did address the other levels here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23655174 but it was harder to find more of a breakdown in the data.

I don't have a link handy but it's around 15% of the total prison population who are in for drug offences.

I do have a link handy: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

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

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no problem with that, but why aren't these types of statistical models and curve analysis being used to deploy drive by patrols? Some of this seems like throwing out the baby with the bath water, does it not? While I agree that it's way too soon for this sort of granularity, is it too soon to have 10 block, increased presence of troubled areas helped by statistical analysis?

If crime being caught by a drive-by patrol is a significant way in which crime is being caught, to me that screams "victimless crimes". I break victimless laws all the time, sometimes with my police officer friends and neighbors present, sometimes on private property miles from any public roads. I never seem to get busted for it. So if 10-block patrols of "troubled areas" really saw an increase in enforcement action,…

Exactly. Vice or maybe Vox did a short with an ex-cop who mentioned this concept. He said they made a lot of arrests of black men carrying illegal switch blades. But said that white people carried those illegal blades just as often. Including many police officers that he worked with. But since they mostly patrolled in black neighborhoods, they of course made many more arrests and citations for carrying an illegal blade.

The fact that you find more crime where you patrol more is such a simple concept, it hardly seems necessary to mention. And yet so many people seem to think all this police data is useful.

Post reply on HN