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."
how long till the suspected criminals-to-be are arrested "just in case"?
Cthulhu fhtagn!
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?
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.
This is part of a disturbing national trend.
In Ohio, they're keeping a DNA database of CLEARED suspects!
John
The drops of water don't know themselves to be a river; and yet the river flows.
Just get a list of current government officials. You can't get possible criminal list with better odds then that.
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
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 people who live in those neighborhoods have a right to live in safety. If this can effectively retard the development of criminals, isn't it worth it?
This why we have affirmative action programs like "Midnight Basketball". When there is a possibility of someone going down the path of crime, it is much cheaper to stop them when they haven't done anything than it is to incarcerate them later.
I have been pwned because my
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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. We've just got to find someone that everyone trusts to monitor the system and administer electric shocks to those suspected of contemplating bad thoughts. Someone pure of heart. We better get voting, ideally using some of those ultra secure secret electronic voting machines..
air and light and time and space
"I don't care what anyone but a court of law thinks," he said. "Until a court says otherwise, if I say it's constitutional, it's constitutional."
That's from this article.
Free Mac Mini
``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.
These police are amateurs. My money says 90% of those in the database are *actual* criminals, having managed to violate the DMCA one way or another.
Cheers
-b
IMO, if these people are being treated as criminals without actually committing a crime, they might as well commit crimes. I don't know about you, but if I were singled out as a potential criminal, my first order of business would be to remove all doubt by killing everybody dear to the person that lets this continue.
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
... here
I would best most of those CEO's don't live in high crime areas
[This was a joke to the moderator challenged]
Live web cams
They're just crusing high crime areas (where the probabability is greater that a resident will be involved in criminal activity), then they find someone who's doing anything that's even remotely in violation of the law (loitering for instance), then adding them to the probability list.
And of course, they cite numbers of "successful guesses" but fail to mention how many misses. Its not necessarily meaningful. Very VERY few people are completely 100% in compliance with the law. I wouldn't go so far to say that someone who occasionally speeds is to be considered a criminal, but if you look at the teeth many laws have, especially copyright law, many of us are in violation to the degree that we could spend many thousands of years in prison and be fined billions of dollars, should they bring those cases to court and press the maximums.
6.6 Million americans (about 3%) are currently under supervision of a correctional institution, either in prison, or on parole or probation. And that's RIGHT NOW. That's a significant percentage of the population. To drive around someplace where that percentage is signficantly higher, it wouldn't be terribly unlikely to get a 10% matchup with pure guessing by pointing out random people who will one day end up in trouble with the law. To tout statistical probabilities as indications that this system is any more useful than pursusing criminals after the crime has been commmited is nothing more than a lazy effort to create the impression that something is being done about the "problem".
What is the point of this anyway? So someone's name is on a "future criminals" list. Does that make any difference when a trial comes up? I suppose if there's a murder, and one of the suspects happens to be on the list, that might be something, but if the only critiera for being added to the list was the fact that you once jaywalked 5 years ago, there would be little grounds to take it seriously, and defense lawyers would have a field day if someone was held longer than necessary based only on such inconsequencial evidence.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
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"
This already happens in the UK, under the mental health act, a person can be detained for up to 28 days to "protect themselves or others" and longer if during those 28 days psychologists determine that the person requires medical help.
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.
Or just send them your "ass pennies".
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 &
Consider This bill...
If passed, this will mandate a year of military training for nearly all "selective service" age males (and any females for volunteer - is it just me or is this an amusing chauvenistic anachronism for a modern law?...).
It's far from being an outright "draft", but it holds a disturbing (and on-topic) implication.
I seem to recall that when someone begins US military service, that they are subjected to a variety of examinations, including, I assume, psychiatric ones. Of course, the military keeps records of the results.
Therefore...this bill is basically a convenient way to ensure that the US Federal Government would from that day forth be able to "profile" effectively every male US citizen as they hit voting age. It'd be a trivial matter, in a technical sense, to automate the "picking out" of any results that are deemed "worrisome" and the reports shared with law enforcement agencies everywhere...
I'm not certain that's the main PURPOSE of the bill, but I don't doubt that aspect of it would appeal to current AND FUTURE executive administrations in the US....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
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.
So there's a published list, even if it's only published to cops, saying "This person is likely to commit a crime". Leave aside the obvious civil liberties issues for the moment - this seems like simple libel to me. At least for the Usual Suspects who haven't yet been arrested for things, this doesn't sound like investigation of a crime or other legitimate police function that's protected by laws protecting government officials doing their official jobs. Of course, most of the people on the list probably don't have the resources to fight that kind of libel suit, but it'd be fun to get the ACLU or some other pro bono support for it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
here is a better article about the practice as well as some legal explanations for and against it. It also has quotes from people in the affected neighborhoods.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Furthermore, many argue that not only economic minorities but, also racial minorities (so often the same) are unjustly labeled as the largest source of criminals. Again the statistics say otherwise.
The fact is that economic and racial minorities produce a disproportionately high volume of criminals. Additionally, and interestingly to me, the minorities are statistically the largest group of victims of crime. That means that most criminal activity is perpetrated by minorities against other minorities. This has been case throughout history and is still true today.
This same information would be in a policeman's notebook. "Stopped John Smith, 123 Main St, at 9th & Vine for loitering 2002-08-25 23:18"
What's to stop the police officer from making up the data? What if my car spashes some mud onto a police car just as it leaves the car wash, and the officer spots my license plate and wants to exact a small revenge. He files a report that I was seen giving a known drug dealer a small package at 123 Main St., and, by chance, my only alibi is that I was at home alone reading a book.
Next thing I know, I'm being questioned about a drug deal in front of the Live TV News camera crew.
I really have no experience with courts, lawyers, judges, etc. How does an average citizen's testimony really stack up against that of a police officer, who may be lying?
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
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.
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.
Yes. Interview. But how frequently do they second guess? Does the second know in advance the verdict of first?
In the US it is (or used to be) quite difficult to get out of the mental hospital. I think that they cut the funding, though, so that even really crazy people can't get committed. So they end up in jail, instead. The prison industries can find a use for them. At $.12/hour. (I wonder how quickly the prisons will empty when robots get cheaper? [But could they get *that* cheap?])
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I've held the view that police officers are useless for quite some time now. I've never seen a cop deter a crime, I've never heard of one actually managing to do anything useful that a group of citizens could not have done equally as well. All cops really do is harass speeders and stalk teenagers around the mall in their off hours. They clean up the mess that's made after some punk splatters your brains all over the sidewalk for 17$, but that doesn't help you. We should liquidate the police force and dump the money into education in the inner cities, revitalization of the inner cities, and REAL urban renewal, not the "bulldoze the affordable housing and put up 1500$/month apartments" urban renewal.
Maybe complete liquidation of the police force is too much.... Just remove the entire War on Drugs section, that should probably do it... Then you can legalize drugs and regulate and tax them... A ton more income right there...
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
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.