Tails I win. Heads you lose.
From your quoted article it seems that if the data mining predicts a crime and an arrest is made a crystal ball is successful. If nothing happens the crystal ball prevented a crime. Another success.
I have seen New Years Eve shooting cut down significantly from one year to the next. This reduction has to do with putting 300 police in a complex. This deployment does not happen until the swells move into the area.
Predictive Policing bandwagon
I've done a considerable amount of work on intelligence-led policing and I find this new thrust for predictive policing a real reach. I've yet to see any law enforcement agency conduct intelligence operations on the same scale or as continuously as the military-intel community. I think its great that police departments are finally reverting to intel processes and smarter employment, but I think most of their so called predictive policing techniques have been done by smart cops for years but not documented. Those that come from data are strictly extrapolations that don't really anticipate change as much as hope that future crime patterns match old crime patterns.
Predictive Policing appears in London
The "think tank" Policy Exchange, who have considerable impact on UK government policies, have a seminar next week on 'Pre-Crime and Predictive Policing'.
From the summary:
Quote:
Predicting where offences will occur and deploying police before crime happens has been an inexact science until recently, but that may soon change. Two pilots of the experimental ‘predictive policing’ method are underway in California and this new approach could have important lessons for UK policing in how forces deploy their resources to prevent crime....
The most robust predictive policing pilot, in Los Angeles, has just begun and shows some promising early results. The lead officer for the LAPD pilot, and a pioneer of predictive policing, Sean Malinowski, will be a speaker alongside George Tita, an expert on predictive models, from the University of California at Irvine.
Link:http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/eve...ent.cgi?id=405
(Added later in 2016) Link to video of the event:http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/mod...ctive-policing
How Facebook could get you arrested
A lengthy article in The Guardian, sub-titled:
Quote:
Smart technology and the sort of big data available to social networking sites are helping police target crime before it happens. But is this ethical?
He starts with:
Quote:
The police have a very bright future ahead of them – and not just because they can now look up potential suspects on Google. As they embrace the latest technologies, their work is bound to become easier and more effective, raising thorny questions about privacy, civil liberties, and due process.
Link no longer works due to copyright and a search on Evgeny Morozov, the author's blog failed.
The author correctly draws attention to the leviathans of public use IT, for example Facebook & Amazon and asks who reviews their algorithms, for their ethical basis and effectiveness.
Given the clear failure to win the so called 'war on drugs', which has had massive funding and much hi-tech - why would this predictive policing be effective?
Does it work? Kansas City tries, Memphis did
A short NYT article reviews the situation, with a focus on Kansas City, but these two paragraphs struck me - is this option really working?
Quote:
The Memphis police force, a pioneer in predictive policing, has worked with the University of Memphis for about a decade to forecast crime by noting time and location of episodes and information about victims. Officers then flood those areas with marked and undercover police cars, and also increase traffic stops, the department said.
But violent crime has proved stubborn in Memphis, and the city continues to be one of the most dangerous places in the nation, according to F.B.I. data.
Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/us...t-crimes.html?
US police departments calculate 'threat scores'
A short article and no links that explain more alas:
Quote:
Police departments in many
American cities are using high-tech databases to determine how dangerous individuals might be when officers arrive at a crime scene.The systems take into account criminal history, social media profiles, property records and other factors to produce a “threat score”. Before reporting to a crime scene, police can use the databases to retrieve scores on those inside.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...dia-posts.html
Calculating your threat ‘score’
A better explanation was found in WaPo, thanks to a "lurker" and is based on Fresno PD, California and the full title is 'The new way police are surveilling you: Calculating your threat ‘score’:https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...a0c_story.html
The scoring system is briefly described:
Quote:
But perhaps the most controversial and revealing technology is the threat-scoring software Beware. Fresno is one of the first departments in the nation to test the program. As officers respond to calls, Beware automatically runs the address. The searches return the names of residents and scans them against a range of publicly available data to generate a color-coded threat level for each person or address: green, yellow or red.
Exactly how Beware calculates threat scores is something that its maker, Intrado, considers a trade secret, so it is unclear how much weight is given to a misdemeanor, felony or threatening comment on Facebook. However, the program flags issues and provides a report to the user.
Interested in more ask via:http://www.intrado.com/beware
A US academic intelligence SME has responded by proving, free, his 2004 article on 'Homeland Security Intelligence: Just the Beginning' which explains a lot, almost predictive? Link:https://www.academia.edu/3695760/Hom..._the_Beginning
Beware of threat ‘scores'
Now The Atlantic weighs in with a long article and concludes that Fresno PD's use of 'Beware' is:
Quote:
Beware of this product and proceed only with great caution.
Link:http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...danger/423642/
Thanks, America! How China’s Newest Software Could Predict, Track, and Crush Dissent
In a somewhat strange IMHO article 'Defence One' has an article on how China is exploiting fusion and the new capacity of IT to predict dissent, if not protest:http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/03/thanks-america-china-aims-tech-dissent/126491/?
It starts with:
Quote:
What if the Communist Party could havepredicted Tiananmen Square? The Chinese government is deploying a new tool to keep the population from uprising. Beijing is building software to predict instability before it arises, based on volumes of data mined from Chinese citizens about their jobs, pastimes, and habits. It’s the latest advancement of what goes by the name “predictive policing,” where data is used to deploy law enforcement or even military units to places where crime (or, say, an anti-government political protest) is likely to occur. Don’t cringe: Predictive policing was born in the United States. But China is poised to emerge as a leader in the field.
Dangerous "snake oil" product on offer?
More "cold water" on predictive policing:
Quote:
But according to a study to be published later this month in the academic journal Significance, PredPol may merely be reinforcing bad police habits. When researchers from the Human Rights Data Analysis Group — a nonprofit dedicated to using science to analyze human-rights violations around the world — applied the tool to crime data in Oakland, the algorithm recommended that police deploy officers to neighborhoods with mostly black residents. As it happens, police in Oakland were already sending officers into these areas.
Link:https://mic.com/articles/156286/crim...ows#.3IhFXDIIh
The cited journal Significance is an Anglo-US publication of the two national statistical groups. The article is behind a pay-wall alas, here is a summary:https://www.statslife.org.uk/signifi...-issue-preview
Big Data and Policing - in the UK
Recently RUSI, a Whitehall "think tank" published a report 'Big Data and Policing: An Assessment of Law Enforcement Requirements, Expectations and Priorities', with 54 pgs. and there is a comprehensive summary on this link:https://rusi.org/publication/occasio...t-requirements
It is very UK-centric report, so little mention is made of the various US experiments and schemes.
Today's The Independent on Sunday has an article, based on the report, but has some other comments:http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7963706.html