Re:Predictive Policing Software Is Pretty Terrible at Predic...
by dragonwriter on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @01:15PM
(#37754764)
> If it accurately identifies areas of high crime
You don’t need predictive policing to identify areas of high crime (in fact, identification of areas of high crime is an input to predictive policing.)
> then that’s a sign of poverty,
Poverty information is also an input to predictive policing, not something it provides you information about that you didn't already have, even in the fantasy world where it works well.
> the root cause of crime
Poverty is not the root cause of crime. It may be a root cause of some crime.
Re:Predictive Policing Software Is Pretty Terrible at Predic...
by nonrandomstring on Tuesday October 03, 2023 @01:22PM
(#37754856)
You noticed that the analysis was simplistic despite my attempts to
hide that. :) I'd be curious to know what the root cause of crime
is. Laws? /s
edit: Sarcasm aside... My serious point is; just what exactly is this software trying to achieve? Isn't this whole caper a solution looking for a problem dreamed up by people who have tech and nothing to do with it, and no grounding in basic human values?
Of course some people might disagree with this intervention as "simplistic". And they'd be at least a little right. For those people who may not have read "Leverage points: Where to intervene in a system" by Dana Meadows, I highly recommend it to see why.
Turns out that messing with parameters like money, and feedback loops that constitute a "criminal justice system" are the least effective of all actions. The fundamental values of the system must be addressed. One of those is itself the error that "cybernetic governance" based on software can do anything more than enrich a few software companies.