China Tries Its Hand At Pre-Crime (bloomberg.com)

schwit1 writes: China's effort to flush out threats to stability is expanding into an area that used to exist only in dystopian sci-fi: pre-crime. The Communist Party has directed one of the country's largest state-run defense contractors, China Electronics Technology Group, to develop software to collate data on jobs, hobbies, consumption habits, and other behavior of ordinary citizens to predict terrorist acts before they occur. "It's very crucial to examine the cause after an act of terror," Wu Manqing, the chief engineer for the military contractor, told reporters at a conference in December. "But what is more important is to predict the upcoming activities." The program is unprecedented because there are no safeguards from privacy protection laws and minimal pushback from civil liberty advocates and companies, says Lokman Tsui, an assistant professor at the School of Journalism and Communication at the Chinese University of Hong Kong, who has advised Google on freedom of expression and the Internet.

Comments

Hmmmm....

[kwiecmmm]

I think I may try to overthrow....

Hey get away from me!!! I didn't do anything!!!!!!

Re:Hmmmm....

[BeauHD]

Damn auto-correct!

Already done in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called DUI.

Re:Already done in the U.S.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. If you're driving under the influence you are going to ruin your life and others, it is guaranteed. That isn't thought crime.

Re:Already done in the U.S.

[YouGotTobeKidding]

Umm... maybe at one point in history. But now even one drink from the night before can push you over the 'limit' in some parts. Thats not driving while drunk. Thats not a 'guarantee'. Thats mission creep.

Re:Already done in the U.S.

[TechyImmigrant]

Uh, no. If you're driving under the influence you are going to ruin your life and others, it is guaranteed. That isn't thought crime.

Do you have any data to back that up. Does every act of driving under the influence ruin a life? Is the converse true - does every act of driving sober not lead to a life ruined? If not, what are the numbers for the 4 cases (sober - life ruined, drunk - life ruined, sober - life not ruied, drunk - life not ruined). Until you can quantify those things in a random sampling of car journeys, your claim is baseless.

Re:Already done in the U.S.

[fyngyrz]

If you're driving under the influence you are going to ruin your life and others, it is guaranteed.

The actual facts: there are enormous numbers of instances where people have driven under the influence (of all manner of debilitating things... alcohol, drugs [but I repeat myself], emotions, injuries, sleep deprivation, children in the car, fox news on the radio, texting, coughing fits, etc.) which reduced their general ability to react and think and have caused no one any vehicle-related problems at all. Because it is a complete myth that you have to be at your best when driving for almost all circumstances (and you can control many aspects of what circumstances you face as well.)

No, I'm not a drinker beyond a single glass of wine with my spaghetti... but I recognize the differences between impaired driving, incompetent driving, and an actual accident. Not saying it's optimum to drive impaired, either. No matter what the impairment is. Or even to intentionally become intoxicated under any circumstances at all. But it isn't a "guaranteed" road to injury and/or damage by any means.

Treat the issue with honesty and you're a lot more likely to arrive at realistic conclusions instead of hyperbolic exaggerations. There's plenty to worry about. But not ~"guaranteed ruination of other people's lives."

Re:Already done in the U.S.

[KGIII]

I used to be a drinker. I'm also an automotive enthusiast. I've probably, given all the guilty years, driven while intoxicated more often than I've driven sober. 'Tis sad but true. I've zero at-fault accidents but I have been hit while at a stop light. I had a speeding ticket back in the mid-1970s. I have no moving violations. I have two parking tickets, one was when I was not the driver but had let someone use my car - but I'm accountable for both. The second of those tickets was my fault for not taking the time to understand the several signs and parking there anyhow. I accept responsibility for that.

I've woken up still dressed and found my car out of gas and with a dead battery from leaving the lights on. I'd no clue how I got home but there were no dents or reports of accidents so I presume I did not get into any. That's probably the worst of the events. Well, that and driving across a town square. In my defense, I guess I'm not the only one to have done so and in the fog and rain it looks like a road.

It's unlikely that every instance of drunk driving is going to ruin a life. The idea that it will do so is absurd and demonstrably wrong. It is also essential to add that I was very, very lucky. I have no idea how I don't have an OUI. I've never had one. I no longer drink so I no longer drink and drive. After a number of events similar to the example listed above, I opted to quit drinking. I had to and it sucked but I'm doing fine. I've reached the point where I was comfortable having two drinks during the holidays and haven't actually had any desire to drink since but I figure I should remain alert to my past.

Oddly, I was a functional addict for years. It was after retiring that I stopped being functional. My consumption didn't increase much. My behavior changed a lot. I became a "sloppy drunk." I have no idea why it worked like that.

Either way, I'd never drink and drive again (I don't imagine). It's crazy to think that all drunk driving results in accidents. That's simply not true. You might just as well believe in Santa Clause. This is not endorsing drunk driving but is a warning against it. Chances are good, most people aren't that lucky and the risk is simply too high. The worst thing I learned was that I could close an eye and only see one road and one lane instead of seeing double. Yes, I have used that. Yes, I do regret my decision to do so.

Don't drive drunk. It's just not worth the risks and you're not just risking your own life. I've done it. It was stupid, irresponsible, and risky.

Re:Already done in the U.S.

[TechyImmigrant]

From that link..

"In addition, drivers involved in traffic crashes that resulted in pedestrian fatalities had less than two-thirds the rate of alcohol involvement as did the pedestrians killed"

So it's the drunk pedestrians contributing to more pedestrian fatalities that drunk drivers.

"Tries its hand"? I thought that was communism 101

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> China Tries Its Hand At Pre-Crime

"Tries its hand"? I thought the use of secret internal police (e.g., the Stasi) charged with stamping out thought crime was covered in communism 101.

Can't protect what you don't have

[XXongo]

"The program is unprecedented because there are no safeguards from privacy protection laws and minimal pushback from civil liberty advocates and companies"

That's because China doesn't have privacy protection, or civil liberties.

This is China we're talking about.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[mysidia]

"minimal pushback from civil liberty advocates and companies"

Pre-Pushback was version 1.0. They've already mastered stopping liberty advocates before they can push back.... Pre-Crime is version 2.0.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[Tablizer]

Based on past behavior, the US gov't probably does the same, but doesn't tell anybody. They'll use some creative interpreting of a vague word in the law to justify it if somebody spills the beans, like they've done in the past with phone meta-data.

The only real difference is that the US has to be more clandestine about it among their population to avoid raising suspicion. The Chinese government WANTS their citizens to be suspicious and paranoid, it's how they keep them "in line".

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[tnk1]

The US also can't convict people based on methods where they violate your rights. The usual path for abuse is parallel construction of a case, once the illegal tip-off let's them know about a target.

In China, however, you don't need to worry about that. They'll just arrest you and use the method that was illegal in the US to gather the evidence to convict you. In China, all of that surveillance is perfectly legal.

For pre-crime, the real problem with pre-crime in the US is that you will never be able to convict someone "beyond a reasonable doubt" unless you have absolutely ironclad scientific proof that the events would have happened the exactly same way as in the prediction, no matter what, every time with perfect accuracy. And then, you will need to explain why you are convicting someone for a crime you could have prevented by simply calling up the victim and telling them to go to a safe location at such and such a time.

Now, with China... they wouldn't have a bit of a problem convicting you of a crime that you had a high, but not perfect probability of committing. That is because to them, stability is more important than individual rights. If the occasional innocent person is thrown in jail, it is totally worth it to them having prevented a large number of crimes. They might even let that person out after a short period of re-education and recheck him for future crimes or seditious thoughts.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[fustakrakich]

minimal pushback from civil liberty advocates

The whole world is suffering from that right now. It's especially notable in the U.S., a country once famous for its civil liberties and its activists. Where are they now? Dead for the most part.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[Wycliffe]

For pre-crime, the real problem with pre-crime in the US is that you will never be able to convict someone "beyond a reasonable doubt" unless you have absolutely ironclad scientific proof that the events would have happened the exactly same way as in the prediction, no matter what, every time with perfect accuracy. And then, you will need to explain why you are convicting someone for a crime you could have prevented by simply calling up the victim and telling them to go to a safe location at such and such a time.

They specifically mention terrorism. I don't think either of your points are valid. You can't call up a stadium and evacuate it to prevent victims as the terrorist will just choose a different target and even if they don't the stadium itself even without anyone in it is a target. Likewise, even in the USA, if you find someone with an apartment full of explosions, a jury would easily convict them.
Yes, single victim precrimes like robbery and rape would be difficult but that's not likely something that anyone in China or anywhere else is currently pursuing. What China is pursuing is the same thing the USA has pursued since 9/11 which is looking at where people travel, who they hang out with, and what they say to try to stop mass casualty events before they happen.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[KGIII]

Pre-pushback seems to be fairly easy to accomplish. They simply make the citizens powerless and kill enough of those who did push back and that sends a message to others who might have been inclined to keep pushing. Sure, they could have tried reeducation and technological solutions - indeed, they did. However, they discovered good old-fashioned violence and threats of violence work better than other processes. The added bonus is that bullets are probably cheaper.

As an aside, it makes me wonder what the mental health of the North Korean citizens will be like after the fall of their regime. Chine's mostly cowed and not nearly as bad as they used to be. However, North Korea has a whole lot of "catching up" to do and a lot of rights and liberties that will be quite foreign concepts to them. I am not a psychiatrist so I don't know what it entails but I imagine the vast, vast majority of N. Korea's citizens are quite severely traumatized and will have a hard time adapting to a less restrictive environment.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[BlueStrat]

What China is pursuing is the same thing the USA has pursued since 9/11 which is looking at where people travel, who they hang out with, and what they say to try to stop mass casualty events^W^W^W^W changes to the political, financial, and societal status quo before they happen.

FTFY

Strat

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[BlackPignouf]

The US also can't convict people based on methods where they violate your rights.

Ever heard of Guantanamo?

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[Wycliffe]

What China is pursuing is the same thing the USA has pursued since 9/11 which is looking at where people travel, who they hang out with, and what they say to try to stop mass casualty events^W^W^W^W changes to the political, financial, and societal status quo before they happen.

FTFY

Strat

You say that like it's a bad thing. The primary goal of the government is to create a safe, stable environment. Maintaining the status quo is its job. It only becomes a problem when it interferes with progress or unfairly favors one group over another.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[tnk1]

Guantanamo Bay does not hold US Citizens.

They also aren't convicts. If they were, they'd be in a prison.

I'm not 100% happy about Guantanamo, but let's not suggest it is something it is not.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[tnk1]

I presume in the case of a stadium attack, they'd use the prediction as probable cause as a search warrant justification or something on the terrorists. You might not be able to obtain a conviction for terrorism, but you might effectively break up the attempt by locating them and any weapons, which they could then be convicted for.

Re:Can't protect what you don't have

[BlueStrat]

The primary goal of the government is to create a safe, stable environment.

No.

The only legitimate role of government is to protect & safeguard the rights and freedoms of its' citizens.

Strat

NSA

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds like a different way of portraying the NSA.

Maybe China's just trying to get people to realize what those guys are doing?

Why not just talk about it and make it public? Surely it's not to hide that you're banging half the city, everyone already knows that, don't they?

It's not pre-crime

[Anonymous Coward]

No much different than of Predictive Policing, or Predictive Assessments, or Predictive Profiling, or Predictive Markets, or Datamining and Predictive Analysis and so on and so on...

Re:It's not pre-crime

[fyngyrz]

It's not much different, that is true, but it is "pre-crime" in the "we have no evidence, so we're going fishing without a warrant, probable cause, oath or affirmation, and if we don't like what we find, you're going to see some consequences" sense.

Re:It's not pre-crime

[Qzukk]

if we don't like what we find, you're going to see some consequences

Just wait until the end of the year when the department has to start showing some results in order to justify its budget. "Yeah... we had a slow start but towards the end we executed 50 pre-terrorists and saved China! Next year give us double the budget and we'll do even better!"

If the Chinese are even remotely successful...

[Anonymous Coward]

the ideas and techniques will be exported and adopted. Governments love this tripe.

I recall reading a year or so ago about one of the founders of a tracking company. He says the sheer amount of shadow profiles on people are staggering. He said if gathering and collating this data were ever to be taken very seriously by anyone in power, the average person would be screwed. He made the obvious recommendation to buy as much as possible using cash. Why? More and more insurance and other companies are actually taking a very keen interest in what people do. Rates will go up, as an example. The pizza purchase gag online from a while back is funny, but chilling...

Ordering Pizza in the Future

What about people that own guns, like Manga, travel to "odd" (read, less traveled) places?

I actually don't have a big problem with this...

[mark-t]

... as long as they don't actually arrest someone who hasn't actually committed a crime yet. At most, perhaps, it may invite a reason to launch an investigation, and possibly attempt to create additional safeguards for the possibility that a crime might occur at some point in the future, but the future is inherently unknowable(*), andd it would be hugely unjust to punish someone for a crime that they hadn't actually committed.

* For example, I could make a machine that outputs 1 if you input 0 and outputs 0 if you input 1. The inputs and outputs are both finite, and do not require any significant calculations to be done about the future, but if the future were actually knowable, then it would also be possible to provide whatever was predicted as the machine's output (a single bit) as its input (also a single bit). The result is, of course, a paradox of the same type as the halting problem, and since it is known to be possible to build a machine that outputs the opposite of its input (asm NOT instruction anyone?), the only possibility is that it is not generally possible to know the future of even a very simple deterministic system, let alone a hugely complicated system like the universe. (Note that this does not mean the universe is not deterministic, it may very well be... it only suggests that the future is not fully knowable... which interestingly also suggests that any so-called illusion of free will can be indistinguishable from what we might otherwise consider to be genuine free will, and so the illusion may as well be called free will anyways).

Re:I've solved the equation.

[cayenne8]

Err...what is CHina scared of?

It isn't like they've had any problems with terrorists there, have they?

Re:I actually don't have a big problem with this..

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF are you talking about? I could go through the drivel you wrote in your asterisk point for point and show you were it makes no sense, but I'd like to give you a chance to explain yourself first.

Re:I actually don't have a big problem with this..

[Actually, I do RTFA]

the future is inherently unknowable(*), andd it would be hugely unjust to punish someone for a crime that they hadn't actually committed.

There are interesting questions. If a magic machine can predict a future murder with 99.9% accuracy, and has the ability to kill the murderer in advance, but not the ability to communicate it to a third party for any lesser prevention, is it good to use. Using it saves 999 lives, for every one life it costs. That's a good deal.

It gets even more interesting if you're only interested in social order, and you are predicting 1.2 bil. people's actions. Like the gas laws, actions in aggregate are predictable even if the individual ones are not.

Will it predict that pissing its citizens off....

[Sebby]

by doing this is the cause of such acts?
Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Re:Hmmmm....FTFY

[zlives]

hmmm.... I think ....
Hey get away from me!!! I didn't do anything!!!!!!

Re:Will it predict that pissing its citizens off..

[zlives]

so... YAYYY it works!!

Re:I actually don't have a big problem with this..

[mark-t]

My point is that if you prevent a murder that was predicted to happen, then the prediction is false, one can argue that it may have hypothetically been true if you had not prevented it, but this is irrelevant... it did not happen that way, and so you cannot know with 100% certainty that the so-called prediction would have been accurate without your intervention.

Re:"Tries its hand"? I thought that was communism

[fyngyrz]

Communism? Are you saying the NSA and FBI are communist organizations?

Re:I actually don't have a big problem with this..

[mark-t]

I am talking about the existence of free will, and the inherent problem it presents with trying to impose actions on someone in response to something they have not yet done (since I show that any sufficiently sophisticated illusion of free will can be indistinguishable from any actual free will, and thus may as well be called the latter).

Re: I actually don't have a big problem with this.

[Type44Q]

Would our prisons continue to be depressing, dangerous places, or would they look more like mental health facilities?

So, instead of failing to rehabilitate (and producing even worse crimininals), they can merely fail to heal the crazies, probably make 'em even crazier in the process (Paxil, anyone?!). Whats not to like?? Hell, the BATFE can even give 'em some guns to play with, give them the "tools" to make some politically-useful headlines... ;)

Re:I actually don't have a big problem with this..

[fyngyrz]

i think you've been watching too much star trek. Spock, specifically. Quite seriously.

Screening questions

[unixisc]

Q: Do you plan to be a member of the Communist Party?

A: No

Q: Okay, then you're under arrest

Re:Screening questions

[Actually, I do RTFA]

IIRC, being a member of the Communist Party is a privilege you have to earn

Re: I actually don't have a big problem with this.

[Type44Q]

If the idea of "pre-crime" sounds too much like Big Brother, maybe it's because our values are somewhat less than enlightened.

Or maybe, Ichijo-san, your crazy ass needs to go back to pre-War Nippon because with ideas as "progressive" as that (/sarc), you sure as hell don't need to be sharing the modern era with the rest of us!

Re:I actually don't have a big problem with this..

[Anonymous Coward]

Deterrence matters too.

Re:Silly headline

[fyngyrz]

Unless the Chinese are arresting people based on a predictive analysis model, but who haven't carried out a terrorist attack yet, it's not "pre-crime".

Because only arrest interferes with a person, yes? No problem with no-fly, no-buy, no-work, no-school lists? No problem with civil processes that take their money? No problem with civil processes completely disjoint from criminal procedure that commit them for life? No problem with being forced to notify the authorities about your travel plans and residence? No problem with being refused a license for this or that, or a passport, or entry / exit at national borders? No problem with having one's children taken away? No problem with losing eligibility for various government and private undertakings because of being on some list?

It is truly sad how little many people understand what freedom is, and exhibit little to no awareness of the enormously corrosive forces being brought to bear against freedom. Not just in China either, not by any means.

Re:I actually don't have a big problem with this..

[penguinoid]

He means that you can't tell a contrarian with the power to change it what his future will be.

I wonder if...

[Tangential]

I wonder if being a /. reader will raise your profile for being a troublemaker in such systems?

Not the first, maybe the first in China?

[bobstreo]

in the US:

http://www.predpol.com/

http://www.ibm.com/software/an...

http://www.motorolasolutions.c...

http://computerstories.net/mic...

PDF from RAND:

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles...

and so on and so on.

Technically we already do this in the US

[WillAffleckUW]

It's in all the Fed newsletters.

The fact that we haven't told you about doesn't mean we don't use it, just that we don't tell you you're sheep.

Ug... for what I wish was the last time

[rsilvergun]

China is not, has not been and probably never will be anything even remotely resembling communism. Yeah, yeah, I can already see you reaching for your true Scottsman. Jeez.

Communism is the economic system where the Means of Production are owned by society at large. That's it. Really. Nothing more to it.

China is a Kleptocracy. A large scale operation that funnels wealth and power to a lucky few through organized theft (with a healthy dose of violence). They stopped pretending the people owned the means of production years ago. It was never real. Just Mao's excuse for killing folks he didn't like.

Communism has a lot of problems. Chief of which is that nobody every actually tried it. I'd argue that it's practically impossible since it involves a large transfer of wealth from the 1% of society at large, and good luck getting that to go off without a hitch.

I propose a different system for solving the same problem. Let the bastages own whatever they want and focus on regulating wealth inequality. Insure a minimum standard of living with the understanding that the 'minimum' improves over time. Oh wait, the Fins, Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Socialists already did that.

Re:Ug... for what I wish was the last time

[schwit1]

Success is dependent on the majority of the populous having a decent work ethic and minimal government corruption. Otherwise you get Greece and Venezuela, and where the USA is headed.

Re:Ug... for what I wish was the last time

[DNS-and-BIND]

Well, it is No True Scotsman. The Left doesn't want the albatross of China hanging over its head, so they redefined socialism so as to exclude them.

China is a Communist Party that has taken the capitalist road. It's a heresy of socialism and has gotten them expelled from the Leftist camp. The CCP doesn't care, they had 40 years of correct Marxism and they realized that it meant nothing but poverty. Seriously, the Chinese people were better off under the Nationalist robber barons. They got more to eat, had more freedom to do whatever they wanted, etc.

At a certain point you have to go with the description of communism as it actually exists instead of some nebulous definition that has never actually appeared.

Why not?

[rsilvergun]

why doesn't China have these things? They're objectively desirable. Their elite certainly have them. If the West has these things why can't China?

Re:"Tries its hand"? I thought that was communism

[dbIII]

The commies learned it from the Tsar's secret police.
Conrad's "Under Western Eyes" is very good fiction about the topic which makes you wonder why Tom Clancy ever bothered to write spy novels with something as good as that around.

Why wouldn't they?

[hey!]

The reason we don't do it here is because of the false positives. But if you don't really care about individual liberties, the calculation becomes a lot simpler. Do I get a better crime reduction from the yuan I invest in this than I would spending them elsewhere.

Re:I've solved the equation.

[William Baric]

They do, and as with us, Islam is the main cause (the majority of people in the region of Xinjiang are Muslims).

Looks silly, but...

[manu0601]

Well, the tools that works against terrorism are intelligence and infiltration, and I am certain China's leaders know that.

Hence I suspect this is just a posture. In other words, they are just showing the population that they take care of the problem. The advertised method is a nonsense, but the methods that make sense cannot be shown, therefore the need for something else.

Re: I've solved the equation.

[minstrelmike]

terrorism in china? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=terrorism...

Of course, if China asked Apple for help breaking into an iPhone to find terrorists, I suspect the American Republicans would not be on board with that.

Re: I actually don't have a big problem with this.

[KGIII]

I don't think the BATFE actually gives any of those products away. It might be a more interesting society if they did but they do not currently have that in their mandate. I'm not exactly sure what kind of political changes we'd have to undergo before the BATFE is tasked with provisioning.

Re:I actually don't have a big problem with this..

[KGIII]

I'll be the first to admit it. There are a number of actions I do not take because of the consequences and the fact that they're unlawful acts. No, rape is not among those acts but there are plenty of others.

An example might be, I'd love to evacuate everyone and then blow up a building. That would be awesome! I'd love to drive through downtown Washington, DC and run over the cars parked on the side of the road. That'd be more fun than anything I'd ever done! I'd like to buy a chain-gun and use it at a county-fair shooting gallery. I'd like to blow up a variety of things and with a variety of different explosives.

Oh, I'd not want to hurt anyone by doing so. I'm not keen on putting anyone in the hospital or killing them. That doesn't mean I'd not love to blow some stuff up.

When I was a kid, we'd take empty CO2 cartridges and fill them with gunpowder and put a "Chinese" waterproof fuse in it. Then we'd use them like little grenades and blow reasonably good sized holes in the ground. And it was awesome. I'd love to do that again but I'm prohibited from doing so - it is against the law.

I could probably, given a few hours, come up with hundreds of things that I do not do, quite specifically, because they're against the law.

You're not one of those people who think that all laws are there as moral absolutes, just, or right - are you? Right now it's illegal for someone to fly a remote control helicopter within something like 50 miles of DC. Are people immoral for wanting to do so? Are they not doing so because of some higher calling or are they not doing so because it's a stupid fucking law and they don't want to suffer the consequences?

Re:Hmmmm....FTFY

[just another AC]

(blinks)...

Hey get away from me!!! I didn't do anything!!!!!!

When 68 million deaths didn't?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would this be the breaking point, rather than The Great Leap Forward (some 60 million dead), the invasion of Tibet (genocide), or the Cultural Revolution (what's a few million more?) didn't do the trick?

Easy

[nospam007]

"China's effort to flush out threats to stability is expanding into an area that used to exist only in dystopian sci-fi: pre-crime."

Easy. Everyone criticizing the government will be guilty of high treason later on.

Isn't that what the Patriot Act is?

[umafuckit]

China's reported goal here is to "collate data on jobs, hobbies, consumption habits, and other behavior of ordinary citizens to predict terrorist acts before they occur." The goal of the Patriot act was "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism". They key word being "intercept", which they were seeking to achieve by large-scale monitoring of communications. I'm sure the US would have tried to collate these data to predict who is a threat.

Socialism

[Bartles]

It'll work this time, just trust us!

Re: I actually don't have a big problem with this.

[mark-t]

The problem with jailing someone before they commit a crime is that is intrinsically unjust. No matter how certain one might be that a crime would have otherwise occurred... by jailing them before the act, the crime would not even have been attempted. It is only right to incarcerate someone for something that *THEY ACTUALLY DID*... or at very least something that they actually attempted to do.

I totally get the idea in trying prevent the damage that crime might do with the concept of precrime, but if you knew that if you did not take any action then crime X would occur at location Y and at time Z, then rather than pre-emptively arresting the person, the just thing to do would be to get additional protections at location Y and at time Z such that any attempt that is made will be thwarted, no damage will have been done, and you can then arrest the person or people who made the attempt, as appropriate. If you prevent the crime from even being attempted by using such protective measures, then that's a win too.