5 ms·

I'm sure this headline invokes "Minority Report" in more brains than just mine, but this isn't pinpointing individuals. It's just Really Good statistical modeli

by delinka 14y ago

I'm sure this headline invokes "Minority Report" in more brains than just mine, but this isn't pinpointing individuals. It's just Really Good statistical modeling. Sounds impressive and a great way to put tax dollars to work.

mc32 14y ago
Definitely. It would seem they are trying to make it sound like MR in order to put people off of it. But really, it's just really good statistical (or data) modelling. As they said, there probably will be questions about profiling people and neighborhoods, but if the desired result is to reduce crime and it does reduce crime, does that not in fact subvert the notion of the stereotype? That's to say, if people think this might stereotype a neighborhood as one with more than normal criminal activity and this is implemented and this brings down crime, then in time, this neighborhood would be better than normal, in crimes statistically speaking and would rehabilitate the neighborhood, rather than vilify it. Besides, in reality, it doesn't matter what the police or the mayor's office say, it matters what people on the street say. People on the street are unconcerned with being PC. They will tell you if a neighborhood is good or bad. One of the most honest assessment I have gotten is from RE agents. They don't offer any filters --they just tell you how it is, from my experience.
- sp332 14y ago
  The main question is whether people in those neighborhoods will be treated differently. Written off as second-class citizens, denied rights like privacy rights or protections against stupid warrants, or unwarranted force becoming the default choice.
  - mc32 14y ago
    Let's consider two options: Don't deploy this and let crime continue to be fought traditionally --this results in more neighborhood crime victims and continued view of this neighborhood as crime ridden. Deploy this technique with a long term result of decrease in crime such that it's less than that of places which did not implement this prevention technique. Once that is achieved, there would be no inclination to treat people in those places differently. So, given those scenarios, would a neighborhood accept different treatment knowing that long term crime would decrease and thus obviate the need to be treated differently, or would they prefer to continue the status quo knowing this would allow crime to continue as it had but getting to keep their current level of civil liberties? I know those not the only options, but given those two, I wonder what a group might choose? Also, we do not know how this technique would affect people's civil liberties. We only guess that it would.
    - delinka 14y ago
      Allowing different treatment of individuals for any reason beyond actual reasonable doubt is a dangerously slippery slope. Simply putting law enforcement in an area that has higher crime statistics in an effort to prevent crime is a good idea. Allowing those same officers to harass people in the area that haven't committed a crime is unacceptable. My only concern is this: if the long term effects of this project will indeed reduce crime, do we have a society that's evolved to be less criminal or so we simply lack the data (because we've actively changed it) to continue to be effective at preventing crime?
      - mc32 14y ago
        You're probably right about the slippery slope argument. There is a risk. Still, NYC (and maybe soon SF) has implemented stop and frisk, without a slippery slope, (afaik) and data seem to point to a reduction in crime. Some people have found stop-and-frisk unacceptable, yet others find it acceptable. I don't think measuring decrease in crime is that difficult. One can find out statistically or by way of anthropological study at the other end of the spectrum. One of the easiest ways is probably to ask the residents. do they feel that crime has risen or fallen? Ask Real Estate agents --they have a good pulse on a neighborhood. Now, something unrelated and this is just a hunch, but I guess that neighborhoods with high home ownership would have better reception for this than neighborhoods with low ownership --not because the population prefer crime, but because a reduction in crime would have the side effect of having a positive (higher) impact on rents and that's a negative for most renters.
    - anothermachine 14y ago
      You can't just assume future success to justify a course of action.
      - mc32 14y ago
        It was more a thought exercise. If only those two options were made available, what would a population prefer, given the track record of the technique. I'm aware that one ought not justify a means for its end, but rather otherwise (in this case a kind of elective choice).

by delinka 14y ago

mc32 14y ago

Definitely. It would seem they are trying to make it sound like MR in order to put people off of it. But really, it's just really good statistical (or data) modelling. As they said, there probably will be questions about profiling people and neighborhoods, but if the desired result is to reduce crime and it does reduce crime, does that not in fact subvert the notion of the stereotype? That's to say, if people think this might stereotype a neighborhood as one with more than normal criminal activity and this is implemented and this brings down crime, then in time, this neighborhood would be better than normal, in crimes statistically speaking and would rehabilitate the neighborhood, rather than vilify it. Besides, in reality, it doesn't matter what the police or the mayor's office say, it matters what people on the street say. People on the street are unconcerned with being PC. They will tell you if a neighborhood is good or bad. One of the most honest assessment I have gotten is from RE agents. They don't offer any filters --they just tell you how it is, from my experience.

sp332 14y ago
The main question is whether people in those neighborhoods will be treated differently. Written off as second-class citizens, denied rights like privacy rights or protections against stupid warrants, or unwarranted force becoming the default choice.
- mc32 14y ago
  Let's consider two options: Don't deploy this and let crime continue to be fought traditionally --this results in more neighborhood crime victims and continued view of this neighborhood as crime ridden. Deploy this technique with a long term result of decrease in crime such that it's less than that of places which did not implement this prevention technique. Once that is achieved, there would be no inclination to treat people in those places differently. So, given those scenarios, would a neighborhood accept different treatment knowing that long term crime would decrease and thus obviate the need to be treated differently, or would they prefer to continue the status quo knowing this would allow crime to continue as it had but getting to keep their current level of civil liberties? I know those not the only options, but given those two, I wonder what a group might choose? Also, we do not know how this technique would affect people's civil liberties. We only guess that it would.
  - delinka 14y ago
    Allowing different treatment of individuals for any reason beyond actual reasonable doubt is a dangerously slippery slope. Simply putting law enforcement in an area that has higher crime statistics in an effort to prevent crime is a good idea. Allowing those same officers to harass people in the area that haven't committed a crime is unacceptable. My only concern is this: if the long term effects of this project will indeed reduce crime, do we have a society that's evolved to be less criminal or so we simply lack the data (because we've actively changed it) to continue to be effective at preventing crime?
    - mc32 14y ago
      You're probably right about the slippery slope argument. There is a risk. Still, NYC (and maybe soon SF) has implemented stop and frisk, without a slippery slope, (afaik) and data seem to point to a reduction in crime. Some people have found stop-and-frisk unacceptable, yet others find it acceptable. I don't think measuring decrease in crime is that difficult. One can find out statistically or by way of anthropological study at the other end of the spectrum. One of the easiest ways is probably to ask the residents. do they feel that crime has risen or fallen? Ask Real Estate agents --they have a good pulse on a neighborhood. Now, something unrelated and this is just a hunch, but I guess that neighborhoods with high home ownership would have better reception for this than neighborhoods with low ownership --not because the population prefer crime, but because a reduction in crime would have the side effect of having a positive (higher) impact on rents and that's a negative for most renters.
  - anothermachine 14y ago
    You can't just assume future success to justify a course of action.
    - mc32 14y ago
      It was more a thought exercise. If only those two options were made available, what would a population prefer, given the track record of the technique. I'm aware that one ought not justify a means for its end, but rather otherwise (in this case a kind of elective choice).