Slashdot Mirror
Police Database Lists 'Future Criminals'
Rio writes: "A Local6.com article tells us about a database that contains a list of people who police believe are likely to break the law. It features names, addresses and photographs of potential suspects --many of whom have clean slates. Since the system was introduced in Wilmington in June, most of the 200 people included in the file have been minorities from poor, high-crime neighborhoods."
Statistics show that lower income minority population usually cause more crime then high income majority population.
Why does the author act suprized with his last sentence?
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Minority Report?
Sure it might be legal but that doesn't make it wise. What I'd like to know is where do the people come from who implement these policies? I think Arthur Clarke was right when, in "The Songs of Distant Earth" IIRC, he suggested that anyone who wanted a political office was, by definition, emotionally unsuited to having that office.
I hate it when people always use racism as an excuse. I mean sure a database of people likely to commit crimes may not be the best thing in the world. The police would probably look at it every time they didn't have a suspect and check for anyone who is likely. I'm guessing that would lead to more than 1 innocent person being arrested.
However, I absolutely HATE it when people put a racist spin on things. They are saying hey! the police made a list of likely criminals and they chose people in minorities! they are racist! NO. If you read it correctly the police chose people who live in high crime areas. People who live in high crime areas are probably more likely to commit crimes than people in low crime areas. Common sense. high crime area = more people who commit crimes. And it just so happens that in said high crime areas many of the residents are minorities.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
how long till the US invades and removes the governments of other countries, "just in case?"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
is that why they called the movie "Minority Report"?
ChopSuey
``Loitering'' basically means the cop thought you looked out of place. If that's all it takes to be branded as a suspect--and, don't forget, a suspect is somebody who's guilty of some terrible crime but just hasn't been caught yet--then you better not get caught staring at a cop's jackboots.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
The "future criminals" list, according to the article, is being collected by an anti-drug squad.
Yet another example of how absolutely disgusting the "war on drugs" has become in this country. They're paying a group of policemen to spy on ordinary citizens because they might smoke pot some day, or try a handful of mushrooms.
When can we get these retards back on the street fighting actual crimes? (Actually, do we even need the services of these particular retards anymore?)
Does anyone actually support the war on drugs anymore? If so, what are they smoking?
- A.P.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
George Orwell's "Thought Police" seem to be a step closer. Are we going to be arresting potential hackers because someone is computer literate? How about arresting potential rapists because the person is about to hit their sexual prime?
What are the requirments for entry into this exclusive database? Income level? High incidents of arrest of your immediate family? High intelligence? Low intelligence? Neighborhood you grew up in?
Take this a step further: Just enter EVERYONE into the thing and link it with our upcoming national ID system. Now everyone is a suspicious person until they prove themselves innocent.
This is wrong on SO many levels. IMHO of course.
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"The people who live in those neighborhoods have a right to live in safety. "
yes, from both the people, and the government.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
So we shouldn't try to get it back if its already gone? Why not?
That, and isn't this collection of data an unlawful search? Especially when the person in question has no criminal record?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping tabs on people who have previously broken the law, as unfortunately many felons are repeat offenders. However, there's no way you can convince me that keeping a database of people who "may be inclined" to commit a crime is a fair idea.
Besides, let's be honest, we've all though about committing a crime. Who hasn't wanted to beat the snot out of that jerk that just cut you off in traffic?
Using the logic of this, then the next step is that everyone with a driver's license should be tagged in a database as a possible assault perpetrator.
Illustrating absurdity by being absurd:
Most serial killers are middle class white men in their 20's who have trouble with relationships with women. DEAR GOD! SLASHDOT IS FULL OF POSSIBLE SERIAL KILLERS!
What, you mean there's a correllation between high-crime neighbourhoods and a likelihood of more crime being committed there. This is an outrage. I demand that zero-crime neighbourhoods get equal representation as places likely to have crime in the future.
Yes, it is very unfortunate that minorities in this, and most, countries tend to be in poorer neighbourhoods and that those neighbourhoods are consequently more likely to suffer from crime. However, as far as I'm aware, the list contains those individuals for reasons other than race. Playing the race card simply serves to add an association that wasn't being made before. Haven't we learned yet that the over-the-top-PC brigade do more harm than good?
After the Columbine Shooting the FBI posted a survey that would help profile a potential school shooter. We all remember that list, it was on /. after all. The list with things like:
Locking your door from the rest of the family.
Not labeling Floppy disks,
Being the Social Outcast of the school.
Hell I'd warrant that most of us would have been profiled as a potential threat based of our answers to that list. Odds are that at least some of us would fit that list as well.
What should really chap our collective asses is the blurb I heard on the Jim Gearhart show on 101.5 in New Jersey. That this law is constitutional because they say it is. If this is a true statement and not FUD from what boils down to a Rush Limbaugh-ish show, then we're really going to hell in a handbasket. If they can ignore the constitution based on whim then we're (not to put a fine point on it) fucked.
What is going to happen when this person goes for a job interview and he answers that he has no criminal record and then the employer and sees a "Future Criminal" tag? IF he going to be forced to work fast food and live off of welfare even though his record is clean?
Honestly, It's become a matter of 'when' and not 'if' for the revolution hasn't it?
Phoenix
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Most crime happens in poor, minority-dominated neighborhoods. It only makes sense to increase the police presence in those areas, through random patrols and targetted surveillance of possible hotspots and hotheads.
The worst part of America winning the Cold War is that whenever insane shit like profiling potential criminals happens we can no longer point to the practice of show me your papers in the Iron Curtain or Soviet states to show why it is against the very principles of democracy the US is based upon. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I used to live in one of those poor, crime ridden, minority dominated neighborhoods a few years ago and this adverserial us vs. them mentality between the police and members of the community was a major problem which is excarberated by public opinion that encourages treating poor, non-whites as a criminal underclass as default behavior of the police.
Enough hyperbole, it's not making anyone's point stronger.
:-), your voice may be recorded, or any host of things that are easily accessible to those around you. You are secure in your home, papers, effects, and on your person. Once you step outside your house, your identity becomes public information.
The fact of the matter is that the government (and frankly, anyone) can have a file on anyone, and against this there is no law, Constitutional or otherwise. The only restriction is that non-public information cannot be gained without a warrant issued by a judge. Any data collection that goes on in these neighborhoods is not done by entering these peoples' homes and searching for incriminating evidence. Rather, they are picking up on actions like teenagers hanging out late in alleyways or empty parking lots or who are seen interacting with known criminals. In other words, there are logical reasons to put them on the list.
your picture, your demographics and non-criminal history not your "effects", not your "person"?
No. If you are in a public place, then you have no privacy. Your picture may be taken (I like smiling in other tourists' vacation photos
There is nothing here that is either odious or illegal. Think of it as a return to the beat cop era where the cop knew everyone in the neighborhood. This list isn't a deterrent in itself. It is simply a means to deduce where extra policing (in the full sense of the term) is needed.
I have been pwned because my
Here's why I think this is a massive, huge problem: a cop "gets familiar" with my face because I went to a club in a bad part of town, and then is predisposed to assume I'm guilty of a crime on a later date. Let's say YOU are in the database. Let's say you've never been arrested or convicted of ANY crime. And let's say suddenly you're pulled in for a crime you didn't commit. You want to try to convince that cop you're innocent? How good are you going to feel while the cop sits there saying, "uh-huh, sure buddy. Look, it's in the computer and so we know your bad news."
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
Many of the people whose photos have been taken were stopped briefly for loitering and let go.
Considering that African-Americans have long been been pulled over for Driving While Black, is police persecution for Standing While Black much of a surprise? If you are a young black male in America, you automatically "fit the description" for some fugitive from justice. If you want to suggest that profiling such a large group prevents crime, then I ask, where is the database of white male multimillionaires?
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
The real purpose of this kind of database is NOT to incriminate the not guilty, or to place random people into the database just for the hell of it. The point is to decrease the amount of time spent investigating crimes.
I'm sure law enforcement has a better reason than "he's black!" to put these people into a database. They have most likely done research, gathered the names and faces of people who are running with gangs or others who have committed crimes. If you put *everyone* into the database, you lose the effectiveness of the database, and therefore it's worthless to the investigators. This is specifically designed to save money by cutting the time it takes to investigate crimes.
This was done against the mafia years ago. Not only do you watch the criminals, but you have to watch who the criminals are close to. If you do not, you will effectively lose the battle.
how many corporate exec's go mugging for fun, or boost their neighbors Acura Integra.
Lord no, they just have some 'fun' with some poor girl or use some 'social' drugs, they wouldn't break any real laws!
Bleh.
The only difference between the rich and the poor is that if some poor guy fucks up he can be arrested and thrown in jail in a second, some rich shit rapes somebody everybody else is too afraid to speak up.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
Hmmm...yes...and we could call it the Matrix.
The operative word is IF. there is no reason to believe that someone who is minding his own business on a public street is going to commit a crime. What you have here is RACIAL PROFILING on the highest degree. I am very disturbed that so many people think this is OK. We are not talking about the right to copy a DVD or share music with friends. This is a violation of basic human right. About "Equal protection under the Law"
I do agree with deft that we should get familiar with those faces. Not so we can include them in some photo lineup but so that we can know who they are. And they can know us. And we can help and guide them.
Preventing crime does not come from identifying possible criminals but identifying the potential in all of our youth.
These people are NOT having their rights infringed on. I can make a database of any group of people I want...hell, I can go through the phonebook, find out where the person lives and go take a picture of them AND IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL. All this organization is doing is keeping track of people that have been caught in 'questionable activities' and making a list.
...and to anyone with that "Those who give up a little liberty to get safety..." line in your sig, remember NO LIBERTIES have been sacrificed here
Right. But you're a citizen, and this is the government. There are a large number of things that you can do in your free time, but could not do while acting as a police officer.
If these peoples' civil rights are infringed upon, please, get up in arms...I'll join right along with you. But if the police are just compiling a database, not performing searches, pulling them over unnecessarily (note: I am not referring to racial profiling) or taking them into jail without cause, I see no problem with this.
Um, then what are they using this database for? The article very notably does not say. So long as the police officers use the database for nothing more than... an office betting pool, I can't imagine a legal use.
It could, in fact, be a good way to keep an eye on potential trouble makers. If the cops checked what these individuals were doing on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis, it would keep some innocents from getting harmed.
See... that's what I mean when I say I can't imagine a legal use. That would be *fucked* *up*.
Remember, these are not random picks from the phone book...there's a reason why these people are in this database. Maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but doubtful...the majority were probably in the process of or about to commit crimes (drugs, vandalism, murder) when they were picked up.
Right. So if police use this technique for *all* types of criminals, then there will be no "equal protection under the law" gripes.
--trb
Good point. None of *my* liberties have been sacrificed... because I'm well off, white, and I live in the suburbs.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And what exactly makes them "suspected drug dealers"? This isn't a matter of police keeping databases on criminal activity that they're already investigating. From what the article says, the people who are having "an eye kept on them" have clean slates. There's no legitimate reason for suspicion, and no crime to connect them to. My question to you is, how the hell are police supposed to do their job of investigating ACTUAL CRIMES if they're busy building files on people who haven't done anything?
"Someone's gotta have some damn perspective around here!" -- Commander Susan Ivonova, Babylon 5
Looks like the cops misunderstood the movie "Minority" report.
"how long till the suspected criminals-to-be are arrested "just in case"?"
THAT is just a shockingly short step from this... Liberty and security...
You know, as a moral conservative (who is a social libertarian), I WANT to like the police. I really do. They have a job I would not want. They deal with people I do not want to deal with.
But with this sort of thing, and incidents like the Houston PD stormtrooperaid on kids at a K-Mart http://66.70.240.173/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1598 (discussed on my site, several news articles linked to there), I don't trust them...
I'm beginning to believe that there is little difference between the police AND the criminals anymore. And that is scary, when you consider how much more militarized the police become each year...
Here's some advice for the law enforcement establishement on how to deal with crime (since they seem to have forgotten how)
1. The best way to PREVENT crime is to be visible in places where crime is a possibility. This means VISIBLE patrols, not unmarked cars cowering in a blind curve on the highway that goes downhill looking for speeders.
2. Though you'd think otherwise by where you see the most cops, MOST CRIME DOES NOT HAPPEN ON HIGHWAYS! They happen down in the city.
3. Though it's preferable to deter crime (see visible patrols), when crime happens it's law enforcement's job to CATCH them. Not beforehand, but AFTER a crime has been comitted.
You also might not know it, but the crime RATES in this country have been dropping for some time. Yes, there was a slight rise recently, due to economic hard times, but violent crime today is FAR lower than it was 20 years ago, and we have more people and worse economic times.
With that said, how come there are more cops than 20 years ago? How come cities like mine, which has lost half it's population in 30 years has just as many, if not more cops? Why do cops now dress in body armor and carry weapons Rambo would have envied?
I saw this written someplace, which puts it best:
"When the cops talk about the war on crime and the war on drugs, everyone needs to understand that they view us, the civilians, as the enemy."
Clearly there needs to be limits on what information that the government (remember ALWAYS that the police are an arm of the government) can collect and keep, and for how long, on someone not convicted or charged.
Corporatism != Free Market
The only reason you think this is a good idea is because you think you won't get put on a list like this. Which you probably won't, because I'm guessing that you are affluent and white.
they are really just taking note of people that are hanging in shady areas, loitering, with no real reason to be there.
This is crap. The reason these people are hanging out in "shady" areas is because they live there!. There only crime so far is being born poor. And the unfortunate people are being set up for a fall before they've even done anything. Don't you think life sucks enough for the poor in this country without the police harrasing them for no reason?
Now, it would be funny to see some CEO's
You know what, this isn't really a joking matter. The fact is that the rich and affluent are not ever going to find them selves on this list, which is exactly why it is wrong. Despite studies showing the rich white kids do drugs at the same or higher rates than then minority counterparts, you can bet that hanging around a prep school won't get you on this list.
The problem is that there is significant overlap between groups, for example in an area that has poor black population, the biggest contributing factor with regard to crime is poverty, but the police can't tell that you're poor by looking at you. It's very easy, however, for them to tell that you're black.
Since you decide to take a personal shot at my ethnicity, which you do not even know, you deserve to be taught a lesson. Learn it well. (I'll refrain some calling you a racial slur, as you have done me)
What did Amadou Diallo do when the cops approached him? Did he run? Yes! Did he answer questions? No! Why? Because he was an illegal citizen. Did he commit a crime? Yes! Did he deserve what he got? NO! Was it a mistake? YES! Do the individuals involved deserve to be punished? YES! Do ALL officers deserve to be punished? NO!
African Americans use the same strategies that some cops use on the job, this is called stereotyping.... or PROFILING. Some cops may go after a guy because he's black, but some black guys may attack a cop because he wears a badge? Is that fair? NO!
Have all African Americans committed crimes? Of course, the answer is NO. So, is it right to stereotype? No, it's not. So then WHY do you stereotype against cops? Has ever cop beaten an african american without provocation? No! Does that mean cops deserve that stereotype? I'll let you answer that one.....
If you do not say 'NO' to that last question, I'd suggest you have some serious personality issues that have to do primarily with self esteem. I suggest you get counseling.
And guess what, African Americans are not the victims of the white bigots. African Americans are victims of their own culture, and until you realize that, you will never progress in society as a culture. The perfect example of this is Tupac Shakur who wanted everyone to believe he was a "thug" growing up on the streets, when he really was a middle-class kid living in a gated community in the middle of Virginia.
I invite you to read a book written by the Author John H. McWhorter called "Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America" This book can be found on Barnes & Noble (www.bn.com). The author, an African American liguistics professor at a university, talks about his experiences as an african american growing up in this "racist" country and how he dealt with it. He also states how he deals with African American children who attend his class. You should seriously read this book as it illustrates that ONLY African Americans are responsible for the way they feel in the American Society, and how views like your own not only stop the movement towards racial equality, but actually move it backwards.
One sobering statistic is the fact that, at the end of last year, one out of every 32 adults in the United States was behind bars or on probation or parole. This is ridiculous, and a far greater incarceration rate than most any other first world country. I find it difficult to understand how so many Americans can still subscribe to the rhetoric that their country is the freest.
That is, until the police state comes for them.
Actually statistics show that there is actually a higher ratio of what would be crime in the high income bracket, it is just ignored.
This is utter hogwash. You'd better check your facts. Try looking through some of the statistics and reports at The Bureau of Justice Statistics. The opposite of your statement is demonstrated again and again.
Right, so he says crime is ignored in the upper bracket, you provide stats that show a large number of murderers are ethnic/economic minorities from the people who convict them...
If a crime was ignored by the authorities, how would it end up as part of the statistics? If the police are biased and bust minorities more than others, wouldn't that produce statistics that said most crimes are committed by minorities? Hmmm....
This sig is part of your complete breakfast.
I've never seen a cop deter a crime
That's because you don't hear about events that didn't happen.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
1. The best way to PREVENT crime is to be visible in places where crime is a possibility. This means VISIBLE patrols, not unmarked cars cowering in a blind curve on the highway that goes downhill looking for speeders.
A problem is that "sucess" for policing appears to have become judged in terms of arresting people, issuing tickets. As opposed to detering and preventing crime. It is also important to ensure that police officers are themselves never considered above the law. Otherwise it's too easy for a crook hide their crimes by becoming a police officer.
We could save a whole lot of trouble by having everyone chained up and electronically monitored at birth. We could most likely achieve a zero percent crime rate.
You wouldn't have a 0% crime rate, but you'd know exactly who the crooks were. They would be the ones not in chains and not themselves monitored.