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."

22 of 925 comments (clear)

  1. Seems "minority report" is not far from reality... by yuggoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    how long till the suspected criminals-to-be are arrested "just in case"?

    --
    Cthulhu fhtagn!
  2. The Course of Wisdom by gallen1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Trend by dolphinuser · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
    1. Re:Trend by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Funny
      >>So what? As long as they don't violate your rights who cares.

      Whatever you say, Mister T^HButtle...

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  4. A Natural Choice... by phraktyl · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)
  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. From another article by Sc00ter · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Mayor James Baker called the criticism "asinine and intellectually bankrupt."

    "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.

  7. Go figure, it's for the "war" on drugs. by Wakko+Warner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?"
    1. Re:Go figure, it's for the "war" on drugs. by gilroy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Blockquoth the poster:

      They know they're not ever going to be able to do this - but do you really think anybody who's livelihood depends on being paid to continually fight this war is going to come out and say, "You know.. we could really be spending this money somewhere else"?


      I know it's just TV and hence proves nothing, but I like the words that Aaron Sorkin put in the mouth of the President on The West Wing:

      "I inherited the war on drugs from a President who inherited it from a President who inherited it from a President before that. I'm not a hundred percent sure who we're fighting but I know we're not winning. Ten years ago we spent five billion dollars fighting drugs and we did such a good job that last year we spent 16 billion. Sixty percent of federal prisoners are in jail on drug charges as opposed to two and a half percent that are there for violent crime. We imprison a higher percentage of our citizens than Russia did under Communism and South Africa did under apartheid. Somewhere between 50 and 85% of the prison population has a drug or alcohol abuse problem. We've tried 'Just Say No', I don't think it's going to work.
    2. Re:Go figure, it's for the "war" on drugs. by Quintin+Stone · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't think you realize just how much money law enforcement agencies rake in because of the war on drugs. Due to blatantly unconstitutional seizure laws, police, FBI, DEA, etc. can seize property deemed "contributory" to alleged drug crimes, or bought with the proceeds of alleged drug trafficking. In other words, if they accuse you of hiding drugs in your car or house, they can take that property away from you, without a trial and often without a warrant. They are also under no obligation to return said property even if the original charges are dropped or if you are acquited. Any cash found during a drug search will also be seized, as will large enough amounts of money found during other procedures (i.e. if they find a suitcase full of money in your car during a traffic stop, or if you're found boarding a plane with lots of cash, they might very well take it from you).

      Legal battles to get property returned are difficult, costly, with no guarantees of winning. And if you do win, the cost of getting the property back may be more than it was worth in the first place.

      The cash and proceeds from auctioning off all that seized property go directly towards funding law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels. In fact, the money from the seizures is often figured directly into the budgets of departments, meaning that they will budgeted less taxpayer money because they are expected to pull in as much cash from seizures as they did last year. If they don't, their department will face a budget crunch, so it is directly beneficial to police to seize as much property as they can, in order to pay for new uniforms, sidearms, squad cars, radios, etc. Not to mention all the perks enjoyed by the big bosses, including sports cars, houses, boats, and more.

      All thanks to the wonderful "war on drugs". It will never end because the people in power personally gain so much from it.

      --

      "Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."

  8. 1984. by Talinom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. There is already a list of ... by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... here

    I would best most of those CEO's don't live in high crime areas

    [This was a joke to the moderator challenged]

  11. Re:Let's see... by geekoid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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 /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. When did America become Soviet Russia? by Carnage4Life · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  13. Soon to be expanded to the rest of the country... by Dr.Dubious+DDQ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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....

  14. Re:They aren't being treated as criminals by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    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 ...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

    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.
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Re:Let's see... by ShavenYak · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!
  17. Hogwash! With sources. by FreeLinux · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  18. Re:Seems "minority report" is not far from reality by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
  19. Re:Its interesting... by BeBoxer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.