4 ms·

As long as this is andrew_'s personal experience, I don't see why I'd call him a racist regardless of the race he profiled the most. He even goes on to explain

by cbg0 8y ago

As long as this is andrew_'s personal experience, I don't see why I'd call him a racist regardless of the race he profiled the most. He even goes on to explain that there's a good reason for targeting white teenagers: they were the most likely to steal something, so they weren't targeted because they're white, they were targeted because they proved to be the highest risk. Now if andrew_ had started generalizing, like you are doing, then I could see him getting called a racist and getting downvoted.

nielsole 8y ago
Racial profiling is being criticized despite being effective. There is an argument to be made that you shouldn't be treated differently based on the color of your skin. In fact it is e.g. in the German constitution. http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/racial-profiling-german-court-forbids-police-checks-based-on-skin-color-a-864455.html http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/racial-profiling-g...
- cbg0 8y ago
  > Racial profiling is being criticized despite being effective. You got anything to back up this blanket statement?
  - arrrg 8y ago
    How and why do you have to back it up? It’s just a type of argument that is actually quite common with its basic idea being that just because something is effective, doesn’t mean it’s right or just to do. Transferred to racial profiling the argument is this: Even if racial profiling is effective, employing it is still ethically indefensible and plain wrong. Put another way: Even if we agree on a goal (e.g. catching more criminals) that doesn’t mean that any effective way to achieve or improve that is then suddenly appropriate. The German constitutional court does make this argument explicitly (even though I’m not sure any police officers actually respect that – but at least those affected can now somewhat defend themselves).
    - cbg0 8y ago
      > How and why do you have to back it up? With arguments, and to support your point of view. Maybe I wasn't clear. I wanted some real evidence that racial profiling is effective (as well as how effective it is), I wasn't looking to get into an argument about the morality of the issue.
      - fjsolwmv 8y ago
        Here's an article explaining the counterproductiveness of "watch lists", but that doesn't map directly to the shoplifting scenario. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-profiling-terrorism-statistics/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-profiling-...
      - nielsole 8y ago
        My main message is that racial profiling is unethical whether or not it is effective. Especially in the case I cited, it is obvious that racial profiling works better than random sampling (or based only on other features). People out of an ethnic minority will always have different rates of citizenships compared to the general population. So if you pick someone from a minority group that are less likely to be citizens, your chances are higher to pick someone who doesn't have the citizenship compared to the general population of citizens. While the principle is quite simple, I don't have any empirical knowledge and can only refer you to Google Scholar if you desire more insights ;)
- barrkel 8y ago
  What usually happens with profiling is that catch rate is out of proportion with the base rate. For example, if blue people are twice as likely to do bad things as red people, you end up catching more than twice as many blue people when you profile based on blueness. And that's unfair discrimination. It's unfair on all the honest blue people made to feel like criminals. And of course it's self-perpetuating. The lopsided catch rates justify profiling in the minds of people doing the catching. In the real world, I dont know the underlying actual differences in offending rates, but I do know that correlation with life circumstances would probably be much higher than skin colour.
meowface 8y ago
>As long as this is andrew_'s personal experience, I don't see why I'd call him a racist regardless of the race he profiled the most. He even goes on to explain that there's a good reason for targeting white teenagers: they were the most likely to steal something, so they weren't targeted because they're white, they were targeted because they proved to be the highest risk. Let's say that Arab men between the age of 20 and 35 were most likely to steal something when they entered the store. (Not anecdotally: let's say the location computed the demographics of thieves going back 20 years, and found a consistent trend. Let's assume it's an objective fact.) Would it be okay to target them because they proved to be the highest risk? I think the answer is no, and I think the answer is no also in the case of white teenagers. Sometimes doing what is most effective or efficient isn't the right thing or the fair thing.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  You are merely repeatin a baseless assumption. Unless you have a good sample, you have no idea who steals more. And an admittedly biased sample is a bad sample.
deialtrous 8y ago
>so they weren't targeted because they're white, they were targeted because they proved to be the highest risk. Which is precisely why blacks are "profiled" or "targetted" even by computers. And yet the media tells us this is because "AI is racist" and because of the "legacy of colonialism" and absurd nonsense like that.
- fossuser 8y ago
  That’s a jump that is a problem. The issue is that the pattern matching reinforces the problem based on race when race is not the cause. There are lots of historical reasons someone could be be a bad credit risk for example, but it isn’t because they’re black or some other race. You want the algorithm to account for cause not correlated patterns that reinforce racial divisions and then perpetuate the inequality.
  - deialtrous 8y ago
    You simply want race to not be the cause. But all available evidence says it is. When people try to "fix" the evil racist computers by restricting the algorithm from using race, it simply finds proxies for race like "number of liquor stores per capita".
    - fossuser 8y ago
      That’s because race is correlated with everything since racial divisions have a long history and share a lot of circumstances. It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn and previously distinct “races” have disappeared into the general “Caucasian” label depending on time period. Your comments are why it’s a problem - people are unable to understand the difference and overfit to patterns in the data. Our learning shares a similar problem to ML. When you don’t correct for this it hurts people of that race and helps to perpetuate the imbalance - reinenforcing the historical data and increasing inequality.
      - deialtrous 8y ago
dbattaglia 8y ago
Reading the OP I got the impression he was talking more about profiling by age than race. Teenagers shoplift, it’s a pretty common thing for bored suburban kids. I’m assuming he was in a predominantly white area so white teens were the most likely offenders. But of course I’m extrapolating a bit here, maybe I’m totally off base here and coloring with my own suburban youth experience.

by cbg0 8y ago

nielsole 8y ago

Racial profiling is being criticized despite being effective. There is an argument to be made that you shouldn't be treated differently based on the color of your skin. In fact it is e.g. in the German constitution. http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/racial-profiling-german-court-forbids-police-checks-based-on-skin-color-a-864455.html http://m.spiegel.de/international/germany/racial-profiling-g...

cbg0 8y ago
> Racial profiling is being criticized despite being effective. You got anything to back up this blanket statement?
- arrrg 8y ago
  How and why do you have to back it up? It’s just a type of argument that is actually quite common with its basic idea being that just because something is effective, doesn’t mean it’s right or just to do. Transferred to racial profiling the argument is this: Even if racial profiling is effective, employing it is still ethically indefensible and plain wrong. Put another way: Even if we agree on a goal (e.g. catching more criminals) that doesn’t mean that any effective way to achieve or improve that is then suddenly appropriate. The German constitutional court does make this argument explicitly (even though I’m not sure any police officers actually respect that – but at least those affected can now somewhat defend themselves).
  - cbg0 8y ago
    > How and why do you have to back it up? With arguments, and to support your point of view. Maybe I wasn't clear. I wanted some real evidence that racial profiling is effective (as well as how effective it is), I wasn't looking to get into an argument about the morality of the issue.
    - fjsolwmv 8y ago
      Here's an article explaining the counterproductiveness of "watch lists", but that doesn't map directly to the shoplifting scenario. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-profiling-terrorism-statistics/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/racial-profiling-...
    - nielsole 8y ago
      My main message is that racial profiling is unethical whether or not it is effective. Especially in the case I cited, it is obvious that racial profiling works better than random sampling (or based only on other features). People out of an ethnic minority will always have different rates of citizenships compared to the general population. So if you pick someone from a minority group that are less likely to be citizens, your chances are higher to pick someone who doesn't have the citizenship compared to the general population of citizens. While the principle is quite simple, I don't have any empirical knowledge and can only refer you to Google Scholar if you desire more insights ;)
barrkel 8y ago
What usually happens with profiling is that catch rate is out of proportion with the base rate. For example, if blue people are twice as likely to do bad things as red people, you end up catching more than twice as many blue people when you profile based on blueness. And that's unfair discrimination. It's unfair on all the honest blue people made to feel like criminals. And of course it's self-perpetuating. The lopsided catch rates justify profiling in the minds of people doing the catching. In the real world, I dont know the underlying actual differences in offending rates, but I do know that correlation with life circumstances would probably be much higher than skin colour.

meowface 8y ago

>As long as this is andrew_'s personal experience, I don't see why I'd call him a racist regardless of the race he profiled the most. He even goes on to explain that there's a good reason for targeting white teenagers: they were the most likely to steal something, so they weren't targeted because they're white, they were targeted because they proved to be the highest risk. Let's say that Arab men between the age of 20 and 35 were most likely to steal something when they entered the store. (Not anecdotally: let's say the location computed the demographics of thieves going back 20 years, and found a consistent trend. Let's assume it's an objective fact.) Would it be okay to target them because they proved to be the highest risk? I think the answer is no, and I think the answer is no also in the case of white teenagers. Sometimes doing what is most effective or efficient isn't the right thing or the fair thing.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
fjsolwmv 8y ago
You are merely repeatin a baseless assumption. Unless you have a good sample, you have no idea who steals more. And an admittedly biased sample is a bad sample.

deialtrous 8y ago

>so they weren't targeted because they're white, they were targeted because they proved to be the highest risk. Which is precisely why blacks are "profiled" or "targetted" even by computers. And yet the media tells us this is because "AI is racist" and because of the "legacy of colonialism" and absurd nonsense like that.

fossuser 8y ago
That’s a jump that is a problem. The issue is that the pattern matching reinforces the problem based on race when race is not the cause. There are lots of historical reasons someone could be be a bad credit risk for example, but it isn’t because they’re black or some other race. You want the algorithm to account for cause not correlated patterns that reinforce racial divisions and then perpetuate the inequality.
- deialtrous 8y ago
  You simply want race to not be the cause. But all available evidence says it is. When people try to "fix" the evil racist computers by restricting the algorithm from using race, it simply finds proxies for race like "number of liquor stores per capita".
  - fossuser 8y ago
    That’s because race is correlated with everything since racial divisions have a long history and share a lot of circumstances. It’s not because of the color of someone’s skin. It’s not even clear where racial lines are drawn and previously distinct “races” have disappeared into the general “Caucasian” label depending on time period. Your comments are why it’s a problem - people are unable to understand the difference and overfit to patterns in the data. Our learning shares a similar problem to ML. When you don’t correct for this it hurts people of that race and helps to perpetuate the imbalance - reinenforcing the historical data and increasing inequality.
    - deialtrous 8y ago

dbattaglia 8y ago

Reading the OP I got the impression he was talking more about profiling by age than race. Teenagers shoplift, it’s a pretty common thing for bored suburban kids. I’m assuming he was in a predominantly white area so white teens were the most likely offenders. But of course I’m extrapolating a bit here, maybe I’m totally off base here and coloring with my own suburban youth experience.