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!
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)
Actually statistics show that there is actually a higher ratio of what would be crime in the high income bracket, it is just ignored. Think about the recent corporate scandels.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
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.
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
"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
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!
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What if we grind up the criminals and feed them to the hungry? Two birds with one stone, ya know.
Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
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.
"Your honor, my client couldn't have committed the crime. The prosecution's forensic evidence says the crime happened at 0130h.
My client's ISP's billing records show that he was assigned IP address aa.bb.cc.dd from 2230 the previous night to 0330 that morning.
The HTTP logs from www.goatse.cx show that a user at aa.bb.cc.dd transferred 1,327 images of h0t g04t pr0n from 2235 to 0320h.
My client may be guilty of poor taste in pr0n that's not what he's on trial for.
And if I may add, Your Honor, one look at the spams you no doubt get every day, and you'll conclude that the rest of the country's taste in pr0n isn't that great either.
The defence moves that the Court order the prosecution to remove its head from the goat's ass. The defence rests."
"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.