Law enforcement in Santa Cruz is using a tactic called "predictive policing" to try to discern when crimes might spin off from an initial infraction. The practice uses computer modelling to try to figure out when individuals might commit future crimes. It's not sf, it's apparently the latest in attempts to use both computer science and psychology to cut crime proactively now that the economy is down and city, county, and state budgets are no longer so robust.
Why might the police use predictive policing rather than simply watch suspects or persons of interest? They don't have the manpower, and if they don't have sufficient grounds, they also might be subject to an individual's claim that he's the target of police harrassment. But a prediction served up by computer program that certain types of crime, might be likely to occur in certain neighborhoods, based on statistical patterns, could be very helpful.
The Department of Homeland Security is also testing out predictive policing in order to try to weed out terrorist. Its program is called FAST (Future Attribute Screening Technology). Like other commentators on this type of program, the May 27, 2011 Nature article that discusses it likes the analogy to Philip K. Dick's story The Minority Report, made much famous by the film based on it which starred Tom Cruise. Says Nature,
In lab tests, the DHS has claimed accuracy rates of around 70%, but it remains unclear whether the system will perform better or worse in field trials. "The results are still being analysed, so we cannot yet comment on performance," says John Verrico, a spokesman for the DHS. "Since this is an ongoing scientific study, tests will continue throughout coming months."
As I understand the predictive policing systems, none of them promise to identify which individuals will actually commit crimes in the future, as the individual psychics in Minority Report do. But I can understand how some members of the public might believe that such systems might do that, and might object to the use of such systems, or in the alternative, might believe that such systems might do that, and might favor the use of such systems. They might believe that getting potential criminals off the streets before they commit crimes ought to be the business of the police. Lock 'em up, they say. That will keep us safer. After all, isn't continuing the civil confinement of a sexual predator a good idea? (The Supreme Court agrees to some extent: see U.S. v. Comstock--federal law allows civil commitment of mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner after date he is scheduled to be released from criminal confinement). If a predictive policing system can do that, it's magical. Indeed. We've been looking for the magic that can tell us who's good and who's bad for centuries. That's Santa Claus's list. I think only he has it, and I don't know anyone who has talked to him.
More here from Slate.
Comments