Slashdot Mirror
The Increasing Role of Predictive Analysis In Police Work
elucido writes "A growing number of law enforcement agencies, in the US and elsewhere, have been adopting software tools with predictive analytics, based on algorithms that aim to predict crimes before they happen. From the article: 'Without some of the sci-fi gimmickry, police departments from Santa Cruz, California, to Memphis, Tennessee, and law enforcement agencies from Poland to Britain have adopted these new techniques.
The premise is simple: criminals follow patterns, and with software — the same kind that retailers like Wal-Mart and Amazon use to determine consumer purchasing trends — police can determine where the next crime will occur and sometimes prevent it.'"
I imagine patrol cops go where they expect some action may occur (or to stops that offer cheap food/drink for the uniformed). This sounds like a higher tech version of that, basically taking the instincts out of the equation and substituting it with statistics. Perhaps adds more coordination at the central office level too although I'm sure that also already occurs.
It all boils down to statistical analysis
Let's say you own a grocery store, and there's one particular item that shoplifters like to steal
You, as the owner, can do one of three things -
A. Stop carrying that item in your store
B. Keep that thing close to the counter to cut down on shoplifting
C. Fix a hidden vid cam near where you put the thing and start recording
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Ok, so first, if the crime doesn't happen, how do you know you prevented it? Maybe it just didn't happen.
Second, doesn't this seem like there will now be a market for anti-prediction? That is, find out where the cops think the crime will occur, and do the crime somewhere else. Because the cops will be somewhere else, your chances of getting caught are less.
If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
The software checks if person of interest holds a Facebook account. Voilà! If he or she doesn't, it should mean he/she will commit mass murder. Couldn't be easier, I guess...
I imagine patrol cops go where they expect some action may occur (or to stops that offer cheap food/drink for the uniformed). This sounds like a higher tech version of that, basically taking the instincts out of the equation and substituting it with statistics. Perhaps adds more coordination at the central office level too although I'm sure that also already occurs.
Technically a good cop with good instincts is applying statistics. The human brain is built to recognize patterns and to use those patterns to make predictions. Some of this is done at a subconscious level. So its not that we are necessarily introducing statistics, its seems more that we are using a much larger data set to mine patterns from. Still, as you say, a high tech version of what we already do.
If you want to catch a criminal, you need to think like a criminal
To be successful, you, as a criminal, must know your victim's vulnerability - either they are alone, weak, or they are far away from others' ear shot .... and ... this is important - the place you commit your crime must be familiar to you - or it wouldn't be so easy for you to get away - and in cases involving murder - you, as a criminal, must also know where to dump/bury/hide the body before you commit the murder
Many times crimes were solved because of the sheer sloppiness of the criminals
As for throwing dice on the map - I'm afraid it would not be easy - unless of course, the new location happens to be a familiar spot for the criminal
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Start by rounding up all those suspicious Facebook abstainers!
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
That's because it's pigs doing the arresting.
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
“When police departments are laying more sworn personnel, they can do more with less."
I would never have thought to try that. If you get more personnel laid, they can do more with less? Just think how much more productive programmers could be under such a system!
Unfortunately individual police officers were drawing from a much smaller pool of data which was then put through their personal biases. If an officer had a racial or cultural bias then they may perceive an area as having more crime, when the actual statistics don't match.
Ok, so first, if the crime doesn't happen, how do you know you prevented it? Maybe it just didn't happen.
.
You don't look at individual crimes, you take a selection of areas with similar crime statistics, implement the prediction system in some of them, then see how the crime rates change.
Second, doesn't this seem like there will now be a market for anti-prediction? That is, find out where the cops think the crime will occur, and do the crime somewhere else. Because the cops will be somewhere else, your chances of getting caught are less
Perhaps there will be a market for anti-prediction, but the types of crimes that this aims to prevent (or even just be more response to calls about) aren't usually done by sophisticated criminals. Any anti-prediction system would first have to be able to aggregate crime statistics then apply the prediction algorithm, then find areas outside the predicted zones. If you have all that already, you might as well just sell the prediction algorithm to the police rather than make an unethical program that has a very small (and secretive) user base that wouldn't pay much for your system in the first place.
> police can determine where the next crime will occur and sometimes prevent it
No need to predict, why the heck have they not stormed the banks, arrested any of the significant financial fraudsters, yet? Oh... yeah, there is only Libery and Justice for some . Silly me.
America’s two-tiered justice system – specifically, the way political and financial elites are now vested with virtually absolute immunity from the rule of law even when they are caught committing egregious crimes, while ordinary Americans are subjected to the world’s largest and one of its harshest and most merciless penal states even for trivial offenses. As a result, law has been completely perverted from what it was intended to be – the guarantor of an equal playing field which would legitimize outcome inequalities – into its precise antithesis: a weapon used by the most powerful to protect their ill-gotten gains, strengthen their unearned prerogatives, and ensure ever-expanding opportunity inequality.
But we did predict this post would be by an AC.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Did someone forget to tell Bernie Madoff about his immunity?
no taxation without representation!
Ok, so first, if the crime doesn't happen, how do you know you prevented it? Maybe it just didn't happen.
You look not at one single crime but at the crime rate for a specific location and crime category. If the rate decreases after you start your prediction-based policing and the crime rate for this category does not increase in another area during the same time (interestingly this is one step proponents of public video surveillance very often happen to overlook), then your approach very likely has prevented such crimes in the targeted area.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
I knew you were going to make that mistake, but I wasn't sure warning you was the right thing to do.
#DeleteChrome
By definition all lawful arrests are "justified", they are nothing more than the physical precursor to a formal accusation (charges), in many cases they are also used simply to "keep the peace" by physically separating drunks from each other long enough for them to "sleep it off" . Are people charged and jailed for dubious reasons? - Of course, the US alone has half a million "drug criminals" locked up. Do innocent people get framed or otherwise wrongly convicted? - You bet, I believe Texas executed an innocent man not long ago. Is there a better alternative to the western system of justice? - There's always room for improvement* but I've yet to hear anyone describe a fundamentally new system.
*suggested improvements to the US system: 1. Ban capital punishment. Think of it as insurance. I personally have no moral objection to the concept of the death penalty, some people certainly DO deserve to die. I do however have a moral objection to killing innocent people who do not deserve the death penalty. The track record of the death penalty, whenever and wherever it has been implemented, is such that a great number of people who did NOT deserve to die have been put to death by the state.
2. Stop circumventing judges with pre-trial plea deals, sure remorse should count in the prisoner's favor, but it should be unconditional remorse, not the bargaining-chip kind of remorse used to negotiate "justice" between two lawyers.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It is apples and oranges. Crimes happen because of the opportunity and the ability to get away with it. If you can track these factors, you can predict where crimes will occur. Simple things like installing street lights and the intelligent deploying of police help to reduce crime. There are also items of a psychological nature like cleaning up graffiti, repairing roads and sidewalks, and planting trees that make criminals think they are in an area where it is harder to get away with a crime.
Crime is very much an economic force. While the actors involved aren't always particularly intelligent, they are predictable. People like to use words like 'honesty' and 'honorable', but most citizens would commit a crime if the factors of opportunity and the ability to get away with it were highly in their favor.
Bernie Madoff made the mistake of stealing from rich people.
balls in ur face. faggot.
I missed that - is it a new interrogation technique?
I actually worked on predicting when aircraft will malfunction (and crash) and we had a huge database with
everything that happened to the planes to work for, and we didn't get much results.
So upper management brought in a highly paid consultant, which crunched our data for 6 months.
He finally gathered everyone in a conference room to announce his amazing results,
he found an outstanding correlation: planes that fly a lot are more likely to malfunction or crash then planes that don't fly.
Technically a good cop with good instincts is applying statistics. The human brain is built to recognize patterns and to use those patterns to make predictions. Some of this is done at a subconscious level. So its not that we are necessarily introducing statistics, its seems more that we are using a much larger data set to mine patterns from. Still, as you say, a high tech version of what we already do.
Very true. I cop friend of mine often gets asked "how did you know it was me?" and his answer is "because you always commit crime x by doing y."Ashe puts it, most criminals are stupid, or at least we only catch the stupid ones. This analysis just builds on what people's brain does naturally, with a more robust data set as you point out. Plus, it never forgets a crime.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
So they copied and automated an idea from "Idoru" by William Gibson. Colin Laney, a guy who earns his living by manually sifting thru data to find dirt on media personalities. He finds a woman who is about to commit suicide, if I recall it correctly.
We call it statistical 'profiling' and it happens to be illegal apparently.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Bernie got 'lucky' in how long his scam went on and the scale. He managed to keep it going long enough to make national news when it broke and make people want to make an example of him, at the same time that he's simply old enough that 'dropping dead of natural causes' is a fairly likely event any given year.
If he'd been caught(as he was predicting at the time) when he was in his 50's, he'd already be out of prison.
I don't read AC A human right
Oh yes, Bernie Madoff, who stole 65 billion dollars, who is currently in a medium-security prison where he is, quoted "treated like a Mafia don" by the other inmates.
While young guys in risk of a drug charge are told to be scared of 'pound-em-in-the-ass' prison to keep 'em on the straight and narrow.
Yes, it is hard to see that a culture that promotes those values has a two-tier justice system.
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
>Now I know that in the case of blacks it is due to social deprivation, etc. - I am not blaming them - but it is a fact that they commit more crime.
No it's not. There is no evidence to support your claim. The evidence you're about to cite - actually proves something else: more black people are CONVICTED of crimes, but that doesn't prove they COMMIT more crimes. You'd see the exact same thing if, for example, they just get CAUGHT more often. You'd also see the exact same thing if they were generally poorer, and thus had worse lawyers and therefore were more likely to be convicted than an equally guilty white person.
Now we have STRONG evidence supporting the idea that they get caught more often (the very police biasses that you mention suggest they would get more attention on them) and you yourself acknowledged the evidence that they are more likely to be convicted because they can't afford high quality lawyers who are good at getting guilty people off.
See there is absolutely no proof that white people commit LESS crime than black people - there is only proof that white people are less likely to be CONVICTED, those are NOT the same thing as there are not one but TWO mutually reinforcing explanations for that scenario -both of which provably exist.
More-over, while perhaps a lot of street criminals are of a particular race - street criminals in the real world are almost NEVER self-employed, they always work within syndicates (because syndicates tend to kill freelancers who interfere with their territory) and the evidence suggests that the people at the TOP of the syndicates are overwhelmingly wealthy people - from wealthy backgrounds - and disproportionately white.
But those people are almost never caught.
Black people commit more crimes? Well it's possible you're right- but there is NO evidence to support that position, and certainly none that supports the idea that white people commit LESS crimes - only that white people don't get caught as often.
So Occam's razor suggests that in fact the likelihood of somebody committing a crime is an individual measurement in which group membership/dynamics play little or no role.
Just like there is no proof that muslims commit most acts of terrorism. In fact, there seems to be a massive amount of terrorist attacks done by Christians. Muslims may have destroyed the WTC but they weren't the first to try - that was Timothy McVeigh. They just did it better.
The Norway shooter was a radical Christian conservative.
The Unabomber was an atheist.
Muslims don't commit more terrorist activities - Muslim terrorists just get more news coverage.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Apparently they CAN get away with a lot: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/08/wealthy-fund-manager-avoids-felony-charges-running-cyclist/
...
Executed, but possibly innocent.
While official investigations tend to stop when someone is put to death, and there certainly won't (and can't) be another trial after, there are a lot of cases were people have strong evidence that suggests that they're innocent. In cases where to find someone guilty, there needs to be no reasonable doubt, there is quite a bit of reasonable doubt presented here.
Walmart tracks every purchase by each customer. They know minute by minute when to expect something will sell. Why then, are there only 2 out of 35 registers open when I go to checkout at 6pm on a friday? :-/