3 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia Given the problems in police departments (which have fortunately started to app

by pdkl95 11y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia Given the problems in police departments (which have fortunately started to appearing in the news), giving the police a system that will essentially let them see what you want to see is a terrible idea. Police work is already full of "forensic tools" that don't actually work (like idea that fingerprints actually identify someone uniquely, or the various techniques that are examples of the Birthday Paradox). While I'm sure that it's possible to use modern techniques to estimate where crime will occur, it won't work in practice. There are simply too many ways to bias the results (intentionally or not). I suspect giving police this kind of tool is simply a way to give legitimacy and cover to their bad behavior. > including information about friendships, social media activity COINTELPRO is a helluva drug. > advocates say predictive policing can help improve police-community relations by focusing on the people most likely to become involved in violent crime. That sounds suspiciously like an excuse to improve white communities, by focusing on the blacks (who have historically been seen as "violent savages" by racists). > because our predictive tool shows us you might commit a crime at some point in the future The big question is how long until someone tries to use that "predictive tool" as probable cause.

Baghard 11y ago
Apophenia is the _human_ tendency to see patterns in random _data_. Predictive _analytics_ is a machine that pulls non-random patterns out of data and presents this as _information_. To say that other tools have a bad track record may count as a valid argument, but to me, it is a weak and fatalistic one. Judge each tool on its own merit or discard all tools as useless seems like an easy choice. Predicting crime works in practice and theory. These models are not black boxes, they can be introspected. Bias can be detected and removed. COINTELPRO was a program to infiltrate and disturb organizations that the state viewed as unwelcome. Monitoring social media activity is common detective work. The modern equivalent of an officer peeking over the fence in your back garden to see a stolen motorbike. Now they can use Google Maps for that. This is public information: The criminals feel free and safe enough to post and brag about their crimes on Facebook. Removing or combating criminal elements in any community will improve that community, regardless of skin color. Black youth is helped, not suppressed, when gang recruiters are identified and punished. Predictive tools are already used as probable cause. Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can get a brain-wave reader test. This device will tell you what someone is thinking about and may reveal the plans of future terrorist attack.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  > Apophenia is the _human_ tendency to see patterns in random _data_. Predictive _analytics_ is a machine that pulls non-random patterns out of data and presents this as _information_. Yes. I know that. Apophenia is the correct term. Your fancy machine that predicts crime is only as good as the data it is fed and is made worse by the person who interprets the results. Both of these are easily biased. > Bias can be detected and removed. Just like how they removed the numerous biases, assumptions, and bad methodology that are well-known problems with breathalysers? Even if the model was theoretically accurate, the implementation can (and will) be wrong. You seem to be using a just-world assumption that doesn't have lazy, incompetent or malicious people. > Monitoring social media is common detective work It can be both. While these methods may be useful for going after stupid criminals, you're ignoring that it is also useful when targeting activists, political dissidents, etc. If you think this doesn't happen, you haven't been paying attention. You're problem is that you are assuming it is only "criminals" that are targeted, but you live in a world where, to use an obvious example, some people assume that any black person is a "criminal".
  - Baghard 11y ago
    > Both of these are easily biased. Indeed. But remedies exist. Statisticians can examine the validity of the data, analysts and detectives can be trained to interpret the results correctly, and social scientists can point out the dangers of relying solely on computer systems. I have no strong view for or against breathalysers. I'll concede that there may be some errors in those tests. Does that completely invalidate these tools in judging if someone is too drunk to drive and may cause harm to self or others? Should we only opt for rigorous methods like drawing blood samples? My view is: no, we should not. These are valuable tools that work for the large majority of times and help save lives (at the inevitable cost of some errors and inconvenience). In my world I believe in just intentions. Breathalysers are not introduced to imprison sober drivers, they are to combat drunk ("lazy, incompetent or malicious") drivers on our roads. These methods are useful for catching the savvy criminals too. I am not ignoring that these systems are also useful to target activists and political dissidents. That's basically what they were build for in the first place (well, that and the terrorists, see DARPA LifeLog). It's just now that these tools are adopted by local Police departments. A weapon stick can be used to subdue a suspect through non-lethal force, and it can be used to choke a peaceful protester. It will succeed in both tasks. It's not a stupid ineffective tool we should take away, because it can be used in bad ways. We should make sure to avoid the bad usage, and provide police with the best weapon stick possible for the good usage. You assume that this system will be used to justify police brutality and that this system will be used by people who think that any black person is a "criminal". I have a higher opinion of the people who join the police. I rather reserve such judgment to the criminals themselves.

by pdkl95 11y ago

Baghard 11y ago

Apophenia is the _human_ tendency to see patterns in random _data_. Predictive _analytics_ is a machine that pulls non-random patterns out of data and presents this as _information_. To say that other tools have a bad track record may count as a valid argument, but to me, it is a weak and fatalistic one. Judge each tool on its own merit or discard all tools as useless seems like an easy choice. Predicting crime works in practice and theory. These models are not black boxes, they can be introspected. Bias can be detected and removed. COINTELPRO was a program to infiltrate and disturb organizations that the state viewed as unwelcome. Monitoring social media activity is common detective work. The modern equivalent of an officer peeking over the fence in your back garden to see a stolen motorbike. Now they can use Google Maps for that. This is public information: The criminals feel free and safe enough to post and brag about their crimes on Facebook. Removing or combating criminal elements in any community will improve that community, regardless of skin color. Black youth is helped, not suppressed, when gang recruiters are identified and punished. Predictive tools are already used as probable cause. Prisoners in Guantanamo Bay can get a brain-wave reader test. This device will tell you what someone is thinking about and may reveal the plans of future terrorist attack.

pdkl95 11y ago
> Apophenia is the _human_ tendency to see patterns in random _data_. Predictive _analytics_ is a machine that pulls non-random patterns out of data and presents this as _information_. Yes. I know that. Apophenia is the correct term. Your fancy machine that predicts crime is only as good as the data it is fed and is made worse by the person who interprets the results. Both of these are easily biased. > Bias can be detected and removed. Just like how they removed the numerous biases, assumptions, and bad methodology that are well-known problems with breathalysers? Even if the model was theoretically accurate, the implementation can (and will) be wrong. You seem to be using a just-world assumption that doesn't have lazy, incompetent or malicious people. > Monitoring social media is common detective work It can be both. While these methods may be useful for going after stupid criminals, you're ignoring that it is also useful when targeting activists, political dissidents, etc. If you think this doesn't happen, you haven't been paying attention. You're problem is that you are assuming it is only "criminals" that are targeted, but you live in a world where, to use an obvious example, some people assume that any black person is a "criminal".
- Baghard 11y ago
  > Both of these are easily biased. Indeed. But remedies exist. Statisticians can examine the validity of the data, analysts and detectives can be trained to interpret the results correctly, and social scientists can point out the dangers of relying solely on computer systems. I have no strong view for or against breathalysers. I'll concede that there may be some errors in those tests. Does that completely invalidate these tools in judging if someone is too drunk to drive and may cause harm to self or others? Should we only opt for rigorous methods like drawing blood samples? My view is: no, we should not. These are valuable tools that work for the large majority of times and help save lives (at the inevitable cost of some errors and inconvenience). In my world I believe in just intentions. Breathalysers are not introduced to imprison sober drivers, they are to combat drunk ("lazy, incompetent or malicious") drivers on our roads. These methods are useful for catching the savvy criminals too. I am not ignoring that these systems are also useful to target activists and political dissidents. That's basically what they were build for in the first place (well, that and the terrorists, see DARPA LifeLog). It's just now that these tools are adopted by local Police departments. A weapon stick can be used to subdue a suspect through non-lethal force, and it can be used to choke a peaceful protester. It will succeed in both tasks. It's not a stupid ineffective tool we should take away, because it can be used in bad ways. We should make sure to avoid the bad usage, and provide police with the best weapon stick possible for the good usage. You assume that this system will be used to justify police brutality and that this system will be used by people who think that any black person is a "criminal". I have a higher opinion of the people who join the police. I rather reserve such judgment to the criminals themselves.