Michigan Law Professor Nicholson Price is teaching an interesting seminar this semester merging science fiction and legal analysis. We agreed that his students should write blog posts and that I would publish the most worthy on Patently-O. The first post comes from Lauren Kimmel and is focused on stopping future crimes. – DC
Guest Post by Lauren Kimmel
Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report (starring Tom Cruise) was released over a decade and a half ago; and yet, in many ways, the film has withstood the test of that time. The film takes place in Washington, D.C., in the year 2054—nearly a hundred years after American writer Philip K. Dick published his original short story with the same name and general storyline. In the film, the District’s Precrime Division use futuristic and fatalistic visions of three “precogs” to detect and apprehend would-be, “heat-of-passion” murderers before they are able to carry out their respective homicides.
Sixteen years later, Minority Report offers some interesting insight about where we are in the narrative of our own law and society. For example, the science fiction of the film bears remarkable, if not alarming, similarity to the technology behind predictive policing, a term used to encompass a range of real-world precrime detection systems currently in use around the country and even across the globe. The National Institute of Justice defines predictive policing as “taking data from disparate sources, analyzing them and then using the results to anticipate, prevent and respond more effectively to future crime.” We do not know exactly what predictive policing looks like from the inside out—but these precrime detection systems likely combine crime-mapping software, statistical data, police reports, and complex algorithms to help police better anticipate the next steps of would-be criminals.
On the one hand, predictive policing presents clear benefits to the communities who make use of it; it may be helpful, for example, in halting everything from drug deals to domestic terrorist activity to mass shootings, to violent or gang-related crimes. But predictive policing also raises serious questions about our own “progress” toward a science-based society. Is science-based progress always a good thing? And, even if it is not, is this our path, for better or worse?
Predictive policing helps us write a story about when and where crime will happen, as well as who will commit it. But in the context of our imperfect society, we must ask, Is this story the right one? Importantly, the “black box” of predictive policing technology obscures from public scrutiny its process for arriving at certain crime predictions, sparking key constitutional and public policy concerns. Where does the data come from? What factors are entered into the algorithms? Are certain factors weighted more than others? Does the technology behind predictive policing change over time to incorporate new patterns and findings—and if so, how? Does it learn (a la artificial intelligence technology), or does human instruction (and, along with it, human error) play a role? Do those developers return to the black box of algorithms to clarify when a crime “occurred” but no one was ever charged (i.e., arrests vs. convictions)?
And most importantly, what is the purpose that we, as a society, want predictive policing to serve—and does the technology ultimately serve this purpose? What’s more, even though computers are not biased, the statistics feeding it might be; moreover, predictive policing is only as good as the officers and analyzers who handle the data. Even if human error, at least in the sense of data input, is not a primary concern, context may be just as important as the data itself. A lack of understanding of the context could (and likely does) exacerbate existing racial and socioeconomic tensions. For example, if police are already patrolling a poorer, primarily black neighborhood and, as a natural result, detecting more crime there than the more affluent and perhaps primarily white neighborhoods they are not monitoring (but where crime may nevertheless be occurring), the crime maps compiled using these statistics may be skewed to reflect a measured bias against the former group. Or, if poorer communities are more likely to see theft—because many individuals lack and cannot afford basic necessities—the data may similarly imply that these communities are simply more “crime-prone” than others—when there is really more to the discussion.
One last consideration and concern is the fact that these predictive policing technologies are developed and carried out by private companies, such as PredPol, HunchLab, and Upturn. We should be asking whether it is a good or bad idea to privatize these services, and trust them with developing and interpreting predictive policing technology. Consider the following quote from Rashad Robinson, Executive Director of Color of Change: “Sending corporate power and corporate interest into the criminal justice system will end in bad results. It will end in profits over people and profits over safety and justice and none of us can afford that.” Especially when we consider what this process has done to our prison systems, it may be worth thinking twice about privatizing other aspects of the criminal justice system.
Here was my contribution to this topic back in 2013. link to juolaw.com
Thanks James!
Dialogue on this topic has been curtailed by the count filter. Readers should be advised that there is spillover on the Prosecution Disclaimer thread.
link to patentlyo.com
what is the purpose that we, as a society, want predictive policing to serve…?”
We are having that debate right now. Could we have done something about Cruz before he grabbed that rifle and headed for that school? Could we have placed cameras and sensors that would have brought police interceptors the moment he walked out of his home, gun in hand.
This is exactly the kind of technology we need.
“kind of technology we need”
You need to rewatch the movie and attempt to understand the lessons learned at the end of the movie.
See also the dystopian effects as indicated in the need for the eye surgery and the whole “spider” scene.
You are not grasping an important issue, Ned (not all that surprising given your comments indicating your lack of grasp of inalienable rights on another thread).
Or we could just institute some strict gun control laws and begin confiscating and destroying the disgusting ammo s e x ual ga rbage that’s out there now.
You know, like how the rest of the civilized world does it.
“You know, like how the rest of the civilized world does it.”
The rest of the civilized world is under our hegemony and protection.
it’s now hard to escape the conclusion that the spreading of misinformation and hoaxes is a feature, not a bug, of social media platforms — and their business models.
“There may be a dangerous shooter in the area! While the information is being loaded, please watch this short advertisement for a T-shirt that will protect you from Elizabeth Warren’s army of g@y Marxist cannibals.”
Whose quote are you replying to?
CNN story about the disgusting fake news that one of the Florida shooting survivors is a “paid actor”. Because he wore an earpiece!
Undoubtedly promulgated by your beloved deep-thinking cohorts, “anon.” You know: the deplorables who obsess about “political correctness” and for whom life is just a game where “winning” means “making liberals sad.”
But you cast a protest vote because you couldn’t tell the difference between R’s and D’s. Very serious stuff indeed. Powerful and deep.
Undoubtedly… cohorts…
More typical baseless one-bucketing and NON-patent law rants from Malcolm.
along with prevarication and wrong spin (“couldn’t tell the difference between R’s and D’s.” – sorry Malcolm, how is that Donkey C R A P sandwich you are munching on? There is a clear difference between “couldn’t tell the difference” and YOUR desire to simply NOT see the C R A P that exists on either or both sides.
Your mindless poker tell of “very serious” and “deep” says far more about you then your attempt to use that as some denigration about me.
Your choice to remain blithe about that does not control the outcome of that choice that your rant only denigrates you.
Of course, your power to choose. Not your power to change the factual result of that choice. No amount of pretending otherwise from you can change that.
LK Importantly, the “black box” of predictive policing technology obscures from public scrutiny its process for arriving at certain crime predictions, sparking key constitutional and public policy concerns. Where does the data come from? What factors are entered into the algorithms?
Arguably the first fictional movie to present the issue of computer “intelligence” squarely, albeit in a slightly different context, is Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey which is celebrating its 50th “birthday” this year (released in 1968). Kubrick’s film, of course, has been acknowledged as hugely influential on a number of directors … including Steven Spielberg (22 years old in 1968).
[I]n an earlier script Poole tells HAL there is “… something about this mission that we weren’t told. Something the rest of the crew knows and that you know. We would like to know whether this is true”, to which HAL responds: “I’m sorry, Frank, but I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing everything that all of you know.” … The final script removed this explanation, but it is hinted at when HAL asks David Bowman if Bowman is bothered by the “oddities” and “tight security” surrounding the mission. After Bowman concludes that HAL is dutifully drawing up the “crew psychology report”, the computer makes his false prediction of hardware failure. …
In Clarke’s novel, HAL malfunctions because of being ordered to lie to the crew of Discovery and withhold confidential information from them, namely the confidentially programmed mission priority over expendable human life, despite being constructed for “the accurate processing of information without distortion or concealment”. Film critic Roger Ebert wrote that HAL, as the supposedly perfect computer, actually behaves in the most human fashion of all of the characters. In an interview with Joseph Gelmis in 1969, Kubrick stated that HAL “had an acute emotional crisis because he could not accept evidence of his own fallibility”.
if poorer communities are more likely to see theft—because many individuals lack and cannot afford basic necessities
Otherwise known as “the human condition.” This is the kind of basic fundamental truth that has historically been woefully ignored by many “leaders” in the United States (and continues to be ignored here in some circles) so that more racist explanations can flourish.
For what it’s worth, I enjoyed Minority Report. Lots of interesting stuff in there and a great performance by Max von Sydow.
All algorithms have biases, even if the creators are doing their best to make an equitable system. In the machine learning context, bias is often introduced in the form of which data is selected to train and what types of data are selected as proxies for phenomena that are hard to directly measure. A real world example of this are the algorithms that try to predict whether bail should be granted to a criminal defendant.
As a public policy matter, we should insist (and legislated) total transparency for any algorithm that is used by government to make decisions generally, and algorithms that are used in a policing context specifically. This total transparency means that 3rd parties should have unlimited access to the source code and the method used to generate the algorithm so collective scrutiny can try to weed out the explicit or implicit biases caused by the design choices.
This means that no algorithm used by government for policy making should be secret. If a company refuses to let 3rd parties inspect the foundations of the software, then governments should refuse (and legislatively be prevented) from using that software.
In the machine learning context, bias is often introduced in the form of which data is selected to train and what types of data are selected as proxies for phenomena that are hard to directly measure. A real world example of this are the algorithms that try to predict whether bail should be granted to a criminal defendant.
Those algorithms are garbage and, generally speaking, people who promote using robots in this fashion are garbage people.
This means that no algorithm used by government for policy making should be secret.
Agreed. For similar reasons, the uses of so-called “artificial intelligence” need to be highly highly regulated and discriminated against until the accuracy of a particular machine’s predictions are well-tested and the fundamental elements of the decision-making process are understood. It’s “we the people” not “we the robots”. If we can’t determine why a decision is being made, then the assumption should be that it’s irrational or worse.
“If we can’t determine why a decision is being made, then the assumption should be that it’s irrational or worse.”
Coming from Malcolm – THE prime obfuscator, the irony is stultifying.
I think this is related to police that are trained to shoot people if they make furtive movement. It is true that if the person were a cold-blooded killer and had a gun at the ready that that furtive movement could be used to kill the cop. But, without more evidence that the person is dangerous assuming the person is a cold-blooded killer with a gun (and fast reflexes) is a violation of Constitution.
There should be a class action suit filed against police for training the police to treat people like this. Watch a few videos of people getting shot. The cops think they have the right to kill you if you move your hands.
“But, without more evidence that the person is dangerous assuming the person is a cold-blooded killer with a gun (and fast reflexes) is a violation of Constitution.”
??
Which part?
As I have a family member who is a police officer, I find it unconvincing to read your assertion, and without more, I would dismiss it out of hand.
It is one thing for a citizen to find themselves in a dangerous situation in which personal safety may be at risk and it is an altogether different thing to be the public servant whose job it is to be placed – nigh constantly – into situations of being at risk.
It does NOT take your supposed “cold-blooded killer at the ready” for that level of risk of personal danger to the public servant to manifest. Quite in fact, incidences of family altercations – in which NO cold-blooded killer is at the ready – are some of the most dangerous situations.
I appreciate that you want to share your opinion – please make it be an informed opinion.
anon >> “It does NOT take your supposed “cold-blooded killer at the ready” for that level of risk of personal danger to the public servant to manifest. ”
The police officer is the one that should bear the risk–not the citizen. The police officer does not (they do it all the time) to shoot people because they moved their hands. The police are trained with videos of how in less than a second a cold-blooded killer can take a gun out and shot them to death. Too bad.
The standard should be that the person is presumed innocent. When they are being arrested the standard should be that they are presumed to be honest people not cold blooded killers.
Really pretty simple. To shot someone the police should have at least a subjective belief that they are in mortal danger. Reports that a person has done something is not enough. Etc.
If you continue this, then focus down on the actual pulling of the trigger by the police officer to kill the citizen. When is that justified?
Night Writer,
The police officer DOES bear the risk. Your comment does not appreciate that fact, and would want to escalate a burden beyond reason as to the risk already borne by the police officer.
Your “too bad” comment is callous, unreasonable, and does not bear with the reality that NON-“cold-blooded killers at the ready” are the only dangers to which an officer may be exposed to.
Don’t be an unmitigated arse when someone is trying to provide information to you so that your opinion can be an informed opinion.
Presumption of innocence and protection of the officer’s safety are too very different things – do not confuse the two. As I attempted to inform you, danger is NOT just from “cold-blooded killers at the ready.” This IS really pretty simple – and yet you are the one not getting that simple reality.
No one is saying that a review of justifiability should not be conducted anytime an officer uses deadly force. Let’s make sure that you do not conflate your uniformed opinion with what amounts to a strawman.
anon, the question of when does a cop have a right to pull the trigger is the issue.
I think many of the police shootings violate the civil rights of the citizens–at least. Many are murder. And if you listen to cops talk about it they seem to think their safety is paramount to the rights of the citizens. No. 10 cops should die before one innocent person is shot. That is the cops’s job.
Again, focus on when does a cop have the right to pull the trigger.
anon, that is the way the Constitution works. We are supposed to be presumed innocent–not shot and killed if we happen to move our hand when a copy shouts at us.
You conflate presumption and officer safety.
They are not the same.
“10 cops should die before one innocent person is shot. That is the cops’s job.”
The cop’s job is NOT to be shot.
Your per vers10n is showing.
(plus, IF you make that a part of the job, good luck with your lack of officers, and the ensuing LACK of safety for all)
MORE critical thinking from you Night Writer – not LESS.
IF you make that a part of the job, good luck with your lack of officers
—
The solution is to make being-shot/being-held-to-a-high-threshold-of-reasonable-fear part of the job, and then pay the market rate. If it takes a $350,000 salary and substantial property tax increases, so be it.
“(plus, IF you make that a part of the job, good luck with your lack of officers, and the ensuing LACK of safety for all)”
Obviously.
It’s funny though that you know this about police but don’t know the same applies for examiners re “quality” etc.
The two are most definitely not equivalent 6.
Not even close.
anon, it goes to —again–when does a cop have a right to pull the trigger?
Cop safety does not trump the Constitution anymore than public safety trumps the Constitution.
I am betting that some giant class action suit will be filed sometime within the next 5 years that goes to the training of cops where they think their safety trumps your right not to be shot.
You are still conflating presumption and safety.
Nowhere does right to pull the trigger conflict with murder.
All laws still apply in light of right to pull the trigger for safety.
It is a completely different issue as to abuse of the right to pull the trigger for safety FOR a criminal act of an officer.
You want to talk about harsh penalties for violating that (necessary) civic trust? I am all ears.
Your current path? Paved in ignorance and your refusing to have an informed opinion.
“10 cops should die before one innocent person is shot. That is the cops’s job.”
I lulzed.
“The police officer is the one that should bear the risk–not the citizen. ”
What if the suspect is not a citizen or their citizenship status is unknown?
Then the presumption should still be they are a citizen until the cop has facts that say otherwise.
Not to pander to 6’s vires, but what would be the legal basis for advancing what you view as a citizen’s (unspecified) Constitutional rights beyond their normal boundaries?
I ask as you might realize that the source and driver of your views is NOT from a legal source (and thus may serve to remind you of the error in your “Constitutional” assertion.
So only if the cop has actual knowledge etc. that they are a dirty dirty non-citizen should the cop presume them to be a cold-blooded ki ller and shoot them?
Your opinions are like a bad comedy sketch bruh.
“As I have a family member who is a police officer,…”
SFW?
“The cops think they have the right to kill you if you move your hands.”
If you’re 12 yo, and black, and have a BB gun, in an “open carry” state like Ohio (the worst place on the planet), they can pull up in their squad car and shoot you within 2 seconds of arriving on the scene.
Or if you’re sitting in the passenger seat in a concealed carry state, and you have a concealed carry permit, and you tell the cop that, BUT you’re black, they can shoot you.
The list goes on.
And the people shot all have one thing in common.
But it’s not racism. Because it’s never about race.
Nice strawman, as NO ONE has argued that race and racism should be excused.
I can tell when your Liberal Left “mindset” is engaged – you start posting like Malcolm.
Actually, not a strawman. It illustrates the police are killing based on no facts.
Cofusion and conflation with the strawman – as I noted, NO ONE is stating that violations of the right to pull the trigger for safety (as you put it) are or should be excused.
I am sympathetic to how black people are disproportionately murdered by police, but I do not understand making that the focal point for action. Other racial minorities and the mentally ill are also disproportionately murdered by police. And then on top of that, plenty of (though proportionately fewer) white people are also murdered by police (Did you see the recent Daniel Shaver video?). There is a broader problem with how police are trained, managed, or held accountable which is then exacerbated by racism.
Imagine a factory where the millwrights are disproportionately treated badly by a management that treats everyone badly. While they are entitled to rally around their specific cause, they would probably have greater impact if they rallied around the broader cause.
There is a broader problem with how police are trained, managed, weaponized or held accountable which is then exacerbated by racism.
No doubt. I added a little bit for further clarity, relevant because of the usual ‘follow-the-money’ angle.
You can also be shot if you’re an white woman from australia and a new somalian immigrant that is black who joined the police force through diversification program and you touch the back of the squad car you called because you thought someone was getting se xy time assaulted. And the cop will get off Scott free. Especially if investigators totally on accident screw up the investigation.
But it’s not racism.
So what’s the answer if it, against all evidence, turns out to be racism AAA? More training? I heard a rumor it hasn’t been shown to help this directly. Kill all the evil dastardly racist sexist homophone saxophone white cis hetero christian capitalist patriachs? I think they’ll fight back. Segregation? I hear that’s racist. Induce huge levels of white guilt into all white people for existing? I hear that gave you donny T. What’s the proposal all wise one?
Somebody who thinks it’s funny or clever to use “se xy time assaulted” as a euphemism for rape is not worth engaging in conversation.
I’ve noticed your attempts at being provocative getting less and less and less response. Seems like your schtick is wearing thin. I’m responding to your silly provocation this time just to note that for you.
You’ve come a long way on this site as far as understanding the law. I’ll take some credit for that. You’re never going to really get it as long as you live in the bubble that is the Patent Office. But I don’t have the energy, or time, to educate you on your own country’s history. If you insist on feeling aggrieved as a white person because the privilege that all white people in this country have enjoyed since its “founding” is now being called into question, I can’t help you. I can only remind you that you have a job that pays you very well and allows you to be wrong 100% of the time with zero consequences and advise you to appreciate that fact. You’ve got it made. Why not just enjoy that?
“feeling aggrieved as a white person because the privilege that all white people in this country have enjoyed since its “founding” is now being called into question, I can’t help you”
Such “Privilege” of being closer to an ideal where race does not matter is a slef-defeating Liberal Left mindtrap.
It is a mechanism for the UNthinking – it is nothing more than a “guilt trip.”
Sorry, I am not buying it. No one should be buying it.
“Somebody who thinks it’s funny or clever to use “se xy time assaulted” as a euphemism for rape is not worth engaging in conversation.”
She was reporting se xual assault, not ra pe, to the best of my recollection.
“Seems like your schtick is wearing thin. ”
Good, so it goes, the SJW schtick was the first to go, as intended. Thus does the window shift.
“If you insist on feeling aggrieved as a white person because the privilege that all white people in this country have enjoyed since its “founding” is now being called into question, I can’t help you.”
Right now the conversation is about how to not have a specific subgroup of your muh victims be disproportionately killed by the police at a rate of say 20 a year in a country of over 300 milly. What’s the solution?
“You’ve got it made”
I will concede you to be correct in a way but we can discuss that at a later time.
“What’s the solution?”
Step 1 of the solution is to stop acquitting white cops who kill innocent black people on flimsy pretexts like, “I thought he was reaching for his waistband and I was ascared for my lily white a$$!!!!!!”
Let me know when step 1 is done and we can talk about step 2.
A reply remains trapped in the “don’t have a dialogue” filter…
let’s see if this frees it:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
February 22, 2018 at 2:46 pm
You assume the conclusion you want and facts not in evidence.
Sure, when the actual case presents that a “flimsy pretext” was improper – that’s one thing.
But the solution to simply ignore the very real world dangers that officers – of necessity – are placed in daily, well – join that Night Writer path of ign0rance, as your “solution” is shown to be NOT a viable solution.
You need to revisit your step 1.
AAA JJ: those are good examples. And, anon, do you think the cop had a right to shoot in those cases?
And, the racism part is just another aspect of it as what the cops are doing is presuming the person is dangerous based on their race with no evidence.
Just as they are shooting with no evidence, but just a fear for their own safety.
According to anon then, we all have to be strip searched before entering cities for the police safety.
Your attempt at reduction as absurdum is itself absurd.
An issue with predictive policing is that at some point it becomes close to a form of entrapment, especially when the predictions are kept secret. E.g., a prediction is made that a specific person will commit a specific crime at a specific place, but instead of sharing this prediction with the specific person, the information is withheld and the crime is allowed to happen (or become substantially certain to happen). Instead of keeping the prediction secret and risking the lives and property of the predicted victims, perhaps the predictions should be shared with at least the specific person to start counseling to prevent the specific crime as well as future similar crimes.
That is not the meaning of the word “entrapment.”
See: link to thelawdictionary.org
What is ENTRAPMENT?
the act of public officers where they lure a suspected criminal into doing a criminal act.
or see: link to law.cornell.edu
Entrapment
An affirmative defense in which a defendant alleges that police officers acquired the evidence necessary to commence a criminal prosecution of the defendant by inducing the defendant to engage in a criminal act which the defendant would not otherwise have committed. see, e.g. Jacobson v. United States, 503 U.S. 540(1992).
NONE of the items commensurate with the prediction scheme can even remotely be considered to be any form of “luring into doing” or “inducing to engage.”
Mincing words over the definition of entrapment is a straw man to the point that the prediction should be shared instead of kept secret. For example, one could argue that by not sharing the prediction, the police officer(s) have effectively induced the defendant. Regardless of whether “entrapment” needs to be redefined or a new word created, the point is that the prediction should be shared to prevent crime and improve the lives of those who are not yet criminals and victims before they become criminals and victims instead of keeping the predictions secret to needlessly risk and ruin the lives of victims and criminals.
Attorneys and “mincing words”….
Where to begin?
Let’s start with: the notion implicit in your reply here is that the meaning of the words do not matter.
That is simply false.
Here – precision of words – is not the same as you may want to imply with the word choice of “mincing.”
There is NO strawman present with being clear that your wanting something divulged is somehow not required by the reason that you presented.
I have no problem if you offer a different reason.
I do have a problem if you do not understand that your reason just does not carry. If that is the case, you are being both ignorant and unreasonable based on your ignorance.
Now, has you started out instead with “it is a much better idea to be able to prevent crime – through at least sharing – then to idly stand by until a crime happens, then we could have a discussion on that point. Note that the movie brings about the potential moral dilemma of acting a priori the actual event. Note as well, that merely sharing may – in fact – make things worse, as there are people who would use such “warnings” to either augment their illicit planning or to simply use as a “can I get away with it” type of check, with no intention of reforming their desires.
Sure, these may be relatively minor instances, and the benefits of preventing “inadvertent” criminal activity may outweigh such negative effects, but as I said – that would be a different discussion than your insistence on using a legal term improperly.
You cheapen both that term and the actual infractions of entrapment with your loose (and incorrect) usage.
Maybe instead of firing back with your umbrage, you instead think about it and say “Thank you.”
“to start counseling”
Who is paying for that?
Comments are closed.