Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police Program Aims to Pinpoint Those Most Likely to Commit Crimes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Police Program Aims to Pinpoint Those Most Likely to Commit Crimes

#61

Post by mtgx »

krapp wrote: post #20
mtgx wrote: post #16

How long until they just send armed drones automatically after them based on the software's algorithm? 10-20 years?

Isn't this the sort of thing humans are supposed to be bad at but AI should be good at? An automated justice system wouldn't be biased by human prejudice, ignorance or fear. It doesn't get tired, doesn't feel pain or pity or remorse. It would be able to impartially and accurately process vast amounts of data - far more than a human, and the actions of the drones could be completely auditable. Drones won't lie on the…

That's like saying Google search is "objective" because it's "just software". Google engineers write how the software will act...In the same way, drones will act how the humans tell them to act in various scenarios.

When we get super-human AI, then maybe we can hope for that.

Re: Police Program Aims to Pinpoint Those Most Likely to Commit Crimes

#62

Post by AnimalMuppet »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #60
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you can have distortions in the data , even if the algorithm is neutral, can't you? The data says "men are more likely to commit rape than women"; OK, that's probably not just that the data encodes a bias. But if your program says "blacks are more likely to be charged with violent crimes", say, is that because blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes, or because blacks are more likely to be charged with vi…

Yes, I agree that not all learning algorithms are perfect. Is it your belief that we can cook up better algos/data collection methods/etc and all the people complaining about "bias" in algorithms will be satisfied? I don't believe that is the case, given that no one is actually complaining that the algorithms are getting the (factually) wrong answer.

My assertion was that a perfect algorithm, fed biased data, produces biased results. Given Ferguson, etc., data from the justice system may be biased, at least for some locations.

If the arresting officers are biased, the number of arrests are probably biased. I'm not sure that you can fix that with better data collection methods; the problem isn't with the data collection. The problem also isn't with the analysis.

It may be possible, at least in theory, to create an algorithm that will determine whether the officers are biased, or whether the race in question actually commits more crimes. I'm not optimistic about that working in reality, though.

Re: Police Program Aims to Pinpoint Those Most Likely to Commit Crimes

#63

Post by pdkl95 »

Baghard wrote: post #59
pdkl95 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apophenia is the _human_ tendency to see patterns in random _data_. Predictive _analytics_ is a machine that pulls non-random patterns out of data and presents this as _information_. Yes. I know that. Apophenia is the correct term. Your fancy machine that predicts crime is only as good as the data it is fed and is made worse by the person who interprets the results. Both of these are easily biased. > Bias can be de…

> Both of these are easily biased. Indeed. But remedies exist. Statisticians can examine the validity of the data, analysts and detectives can be trained to interpret the results correctly, and social scientists can point out the dangers of relying solely on computer systems. I have no strong view for or against breathalysers. I'll concede that there may be some errors in those tests. Does that completely invalidate…

> Does that completely invalidate these tools

Yes, when the error is this large and so easily manipulatable. (breathalysers are notorious for being incredibly broad in what the detect (bad false positive rate), and they are required to assume a 2100:1 ratio when estimating blood concentration from the measured breath concentration. In reality, there is a lot (up to +/-800 for some people). There is a good, science-based reason for that ratio involving the partial pressure of EtOH. The reason is valid, it simply ignores the (large) minority of cases where other factors complicate the analysis.

You may suggest that it would be easy to use modern techniques to find a better formula that accounts for these variations. That would work... but it has always been possible. You don't need anything particularly fancy to add a few corrections. These problems - and how to correct them - have been known for decades, yet breathalysers haven't changed. Why? Because an inaccurate tool gives police the leeway to target a much larger set of people (if they want to - selective enforcement is a powerful tool).

> Should we only opt for rigorous methods like drawing blood samples?

Yes, absolutely, and I (and many defence lawyers and civil right organizations) recommend insisting on a blood test should you ever asked to take a breathalyser because of how inaccurate and manipulatable the breath test is in real-world situations. (disclaimer: this can vary between states; see a local lawyer for proper advice)

> at the inevitable cost of some errors and inconvenience

A necessary feature of a free society is the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. Law enforcement is deliberately given a harder task, because errors are not simply an inconvenience. Errors risk charging an innocent person with a crime. You would not call being arrested because of a false-positive an inconvenience.

> You assume that this system will be used to justify police brutality and that this system will be used by people who think that any black person is a "criminal".

I don't need to assume anything. These things are already extremely common today without the need for advanced data processing techniques. If for some reason you doubt these facts, you may want to look up the per-capita incarceration rates by race and compare that to stuff like the drug use rates for the same groups.

> In my world I believe in just intentions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_fallacy

> I have a higher opinion of the people who join the police

I prefer to keep my opinions based in reality.

While I'm sure only a minority of police are abusive, the rest are aiding and abetting by not reporting the crimes committed other officers. Misprision of felony is still a crime in the US (18 U.S. Code § 4) ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4 )

Re: Police Program Aims to Pinpoint Those Most Likely to Commit Crimes

#64

Post by dragonwriter »

pdkl95 wrote: post #63
Baghard wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Both of these are easily biased. Indeed. But remedies exist. Statisticians can examine the validity of the data, analysts and detectives can be trained to interpret the results correctly, and social scientists can point out the dangers of relying solely on computer systems. I have no strong view for or against breathalysers. I'll concede that there may be some errors in those tests. Does that completely invalidate…

> Does that completely invalidate these tools Yes, when the error is this large and so easily manipulatable. (breathalysers are notorious for being incredibly broad in what the detect (bad false positive rate), and they are required to assume a 2100:1 ratio when estimating blood concentration from the measured breath concentration. In reality, there is a lot (up to +/-800 for some people). There is a good, science-ba…

> While I'm sure only a minority of police are abusive, the rest are aiding and abetting by not reporting the crimes committed other officers. Misprision of felony is still a crime in the US (18 U.S. Code § 4) ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4 )

Misprision requires concealment and not reporting; not reporting by itself is insufficient, concealment is active. See, United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225 (5th Cir. 1977) [0]

[0] http://openjurist.org/546/f2d/1225/united-states-v-johnson

Re: Police Program Aims to Pinpoint Those Most Likely to Commit Crimes

#65

Post by pdkl95 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #64
pdkl95 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does that completely invalidate these tools Yes, when the error is this large and so easily manipulatable. (breathalysers are notorious for being incredibly broad in what the detect (bad false positive rate), and they are required to assume a 2100:1 ratio when estimating blood concentration from the measured breath concentration. In reality, there is a lot (up to +/-800 for some people). There is a good, science-ba…

> While I'm sure only a minority of police are abusive, the rest are aiding and abetting by not reporting the crimes committed other officers. Misprision of felony is still a crime in the US (18 U.S. Code § 4) ( https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/4 ) Misprision requires concealment and not reporting; not reporting by itself is insufficient, concealment is active . See, United States v. Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225…

I should have been more precise; you're quite correct about the requirements for misprision. Police absolutely are concealing the crimes of the "bad apples" in the department. To be precise, I'm sure we can easily find candidates of for all levels of involvement (it's a big country).

There is no shortage of police that are giving cover for the murders in their department, and most of the rest still look the other way.

Re: Police Program Aims to Pinpoint Those Most Likely to Commit Crimes

#66

Post by riskneural »

mentat wrote: post #58
riskneural wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the insurance industry, if you are the victim of a crash you may lose your no claims bonus. The situation is not just as simple as a victim of attack being a victim. Wouldn't it be the case that, for example, those in the drug business are far more likely to harm their competition than their market?

For what types of attacks is it OK to "take away the no claims bonus" for fair and equal protection (and scrutiny) by the law?

If the goal is to prospectively keep the peace, then the monitoring should be directed towards those most likely to break the peace. I think that is rather orthogonal to fair and equal protection.
Post reply on HN