Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:00PM   Printer-friendly
from the studies-show-poverty-causes-cancer dept.

Angry Jesus writes:

"The Chicago Police Department is mis-applying epidemiological science (the study of entire populations) to target individuals in a real-life version of Minority Report. They have decided that it is a good idea to put people on a secret list based on a Big Data analysis of their social networks. But don't worry, it isn't racist or abusive because, Science!"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by keplr on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:42PM

    by keplr (2104) on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:42PM (#7641) Journal

    It doesn't appear that race is used as one of the inputs. That's not 100% proof that something is *not* racist, other metrics could be used as sufficiently accurate proxies, but nothing else in the article makes me think it's racist either.

    It is however troubling to me whenever the government starts drawing up lists of people for special attention, scrutiny, or restriction. People WILL end up on that list who should not be there, and there will be little or no oversight to get them off it. They'll never know about their presence on these lists, and would have no recourse to getting themselves taken off even if they did.

    Using data to predict crimes is actually a good idea. Getting down to the resolution level of individual citizens might even be an effective feature of such a sufficiently sophisticated system--if you're willing to give up what it costs to implement it: a free society.

    If we want to preserve civil society, what's left of it, we must restrain ourselves from using all the possible tools that are available. The march of surveillance and profiling technology progresses in step with the escalation of the physical tools carried by police. As they now arm themselves with automatic weapons and armored vehicles, so too are they being equipped with cell-phone intercepting vans, secret computer generated lists, and automated surveillance and facial ID. It's the left boot, right boot, stride of the advancing police state.

    Police have generally not proven themselves competent and restrained enough to deserve their current arsenal. I don't want them given anything new to abuse.

    --
    I don't respond to ACs.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=4, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:51PM

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday February 26 2014, @11:51PM (#7643) Homepage Journal

    It doesn't appear that race is used as one of the inputs. That's not 100% proof that something is *not* racist,

    Yes, it is. That is the definition of racism. Dictionary FTW.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by keplr on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:01AM

      by keplr (2104) on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:01AM (#7651) Journal

      You are technically correct, but only in a meaningless, facile way. It's possible to use other criteria as a proxy for creating a racist policy. For example, if I want to disenfranchise black people, I can look up census data on which neighborhoods in a city are poorest and vote Democrat, and then direct the most onerous and stifling voter suppression tactics there. That'll work just fine for such purposes. Yes, you'll catch a lot of people who aren't black too, and a lot of blacks won't be targeted, but when you only need statistical significance it's a perfectly useful tactic--and a racist one, despite never feeding race directly into the equation.

      --
      I don't respond to ACs.
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:11AM

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:11AM (#7657) Homepage Journal
        Yes, it is possible but there is a problem there. Someone looking at poor neighbourhoods with higher than mean crime rates and ordering more police patrols is not being racist unless they did it with the intention of arresting more black people. You cannot judge intentions reliably absent evidence, so you do not get to call racism unless you know that race was a component either directly or based on real evidence of the decision-maker's intentions. That he's a cop or white is not evidence.
        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by keplr on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:19AM

          by keplr (2104) on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:19AM (#7659) Journal

          Which tallies exactly with what I said in my original comment. I don't believe this system is racist, but the mere absence of race as data being fed into it is not positive proof that it is not.

          --
          I don't respond to ACs.
          • (Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:36AM

            by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:36AM (#7667) Homepage Journal
            Positive proof, no. Lacking any evidence to the contrary though, it should be assumed that it is not unless your name is Jackson or Sharpton and you make your living by exposing racism where it doesn't exist.
            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:28AM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:28AM (#7663)

        It's possible to use other criteria as a proxy for creating a racist policy. For example, if I want to disenfranchise black people, I can look up census data on which neighborhoods in a city are poorest and vote Democrat, and then direct the most onerous and stifling voter suppression tactics there.

        It doesn't even have to be deliberate. In fact, I don't think it is useful to assume deliberate racism in the creation of these lists. The way modern racism frequently works (at least in the US where there is major social stigma associated with being racist) is that subconscious biases come into play. Practically no one says, "black people are criminals" but they do say things like "people who live in bad neighborhoods are criminals" and "if you live in a bad neighborhood that's your choice" because they've never lived in a bad neighborhood themselves.

        I think that racism in modern america is more a case of ignorance about the lives of others than it is about deliberately punitive actions. Not to trivialize it, but it is sort of an "accidental racism."

        • (Score: 1) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:51AM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Thursday February 27 2014, @12:51AM (#7684) Homepage Journal
          Yes, it absolutely does have to be deliberate. If no human or mechanical mind has discriminated based on race, there is no racism. Period.
          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Angry Jesus on Thursday February 27 2014, @01:03AM

            by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday February 27 2014, @01:03AM (#7689)

            Yes, it absolutely does have to be deliberate. If no human or mechanical mind has discriminated based on race, there is no racism. Period.

            "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread." -- Anatole France