hmmm, slowly edge our way into an Orwellian nightmare shall we? Haven't we been told that slow, metered, indoctrination causes us to not notice societal changes or ask questions? 1920's Germany experienced the same thing....the gov. said "every self-respecting German citizen will be proud to register their guns", then when it became time for Hitler to bring the hammer down it was a piece of cake for the Gestapo and SS to round up....they'd already been given the addresses and names.
Talk about a real-life acting out of the Minority Report, you might be arrested because an algorithm decided you would be, sorry but we have a Constitution that specifically and clearly states Innocent until PROVEN guilty, not suspect until preemptively apprehended.
Talk about a sign of the times, what's next death sentences by self-aware "predictive enforcement" drones?
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Is 'Predictive Policing' Helpful or Harmful to Society?
Fef
2012/07/13 19:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
369 votes
|
|
41% | |||
|
533 votes
|
|
59% | |||
Predictive policing uses algorithms to predict where crime will occur and sends extra law enforcement patrols into those neighborhoods. The police processes historical data through a computer program and determines "hot spots" based on modeling by social anthropologists.
Reason.com asks, "How might predictive policing interfere with the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantee that Americans are to be free unreasonable searches and seizures?" Reason.com claims to provide an alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinions with its focus on liberty and individual choice. Ronald Bailey's article discusses the benefits (less crime, more efficient law enforcement) and costs (possible violation of Civil Rights?).
REASON.COM reports:
Reason.com asks, "How might predictive policing interfere with the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment guarantee that Americans are to be free unreasonable searches and seizures?" Reason.com claims to provide an alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinions with its focus on liberty and individual choice. Ronald Bailey's article discusses the benefits (less crime, more efficient law enforcement) and costs (possible violation of Civil Rights?).
REASON.COM reports:
Predictive policing helps police protect citizens. It could also be used to oppress them.
Chart from Memphis Police Department’s Blue CRUSH initiative uses IBM predictive analytics software to analyze past and present crime records in seconds to create multi-layer “hot spots” and better deploy officers to combat crime.
Read More: http://reason.com/archives/2012/07/10/predictive-p...
Top Opinion
-
iamco2000 2012/07/14 02:39:38
A) A person is allowed to misbehave while drinking but nothing is done until s/he commits a serious problem.
B) Someone with altersexual tendencies is forced to to have 'corrective measures' performed involuntarily on them.
History has shown that absolute power corrupts absolutely and all it takes is one
It appears that Jean and I were thinking the same thing.
I keep seeing the same thing among the supporters of this idea here, "IF" it's done right it will be a great thing. That's all well and good but it WON'T be done right. Anything that can be abused WILL be abused. Have you not learned that yet people? Thought is NOT a crime. Predicting that something bad is going to happen does not mean something bad IS going to happen.
Predictive algorithms are notoriously unreliable. If they weren't there'd be no deaths from tornadoes, earthquakes, or volcanoes. We'd never get rained on because we would always know exactly when and where rain was going to fall. And we'd all be rich because we'd know exactly how the stock market was going to progress every minute.
The potential for abuse with this type of thing is truly massive. No thank you!
It seems to me that anything that's designed to protect citizens is good IN PRINCIPLE, but if it's not APPLIED well, it won't work. That will be the job of each police force. And sadly I appreciate why people would have a problem believing the police will do this well. I don't know whether anyone in a large metro force is trained for this kind of monitoring or dispatching. Now people definitely will need to be.
And, of course, SOMEONE has to verify that the software does what it says it does.
My big question is: Don't police already know where trouble spots are in their cities and plan accordingly?
At what point does "predictive policing" become "self-fulfilling prophecy"? It's like the old saying, "If your only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail." If you start flooding an area with extra police because of some computer program, you can bet they're going to be looking for crime--whether it's there or not. When I attended the police academy, our instructor on traffic law enforcement said, "If you follow a vehicle--ANY vehicle--for a mile, and in that mile you can't find a reason to pull it over, you're not doing your job."
"Yes, Mayor, we know you spent $14,000,000 on a new computer system and software, but I hate to have to be the one to tell you it doesn't work." Are YOU the police chief who wants to be responsible for telling the may that, in effect, he was a dumb politician who just wasted the taxpayers' money? AR YOU the patrol leader or the shift commander who has to tell the chief that it was a waste of money? No, not if you want to keep your job. You're going to do your damned...
At what point does "predictive policing" become "self-fulfilling prophecy"? It's like the old saying, "If your only tool is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail." If you start flooding an area with extra police because of some computer program, you can bet they're going to be looking for crime--whether it's there or not. When I attended the police academy, our instructor on traffic law enforcement said, "If you follow a vehicle--ANY vehicle--for a mile, and in that mile you can't find a reason to pull it over, you're not doing your job."
"Yes, Mayor, we know you spent $14,000,000 on a new computer system and software, but I hate to have to be the one to tell you it doesn't work." Are YOU the police chief who wants to be responsible for telling the may that, in effect, he was a dumb politician who just wasted the taxpayers' money? AR YOU the patrol leader or the shift commander who has to tell the chief that it was a waste of money? No, not if you want to keep your job. You're going to do your damnedest to prove that the system works. And if it means fudging the figures my arresting someone who in any other part of town might have been let go with a warning, that's exactly what you're going to do.
A lot of police cars have emblazoned on their sides the words, "To Protect And Serve." Translated from doublespeak, that means "We're here to maintain the status quo and to serve our masters. And if that means violating your rights and tossing your ass in jail, that's exactly what we're going to do. We are The Police. We are NOT your friends."
And yes, you are right: our nation IS getting worse with crime. And it starts at the top, with politicians, and goes all the way down through bankers, Wall Street robber-barons, bank presidents, and corporate CEO's. But it's never the guy who swindles a bank or a group of investors out of millions of dollars who goes to jail--it's the guy who steals a loaf of bread to feed his kids, or who get's 49.96 from the liquor store he just robbed to pay for his heroin habit.