AI & SOCIETY

pp 1–10 | Cite as

What is wrong about Robocops as consultants? A technology-centric critique of predictive policing

Original Article

Abstract

Fighting crime has historically been a field that drives technological innovation, and it can serve as an example of different governance styles in societies. Predictive policing is one of the recent innovations that covers technical trends such as machine learning, preventive crime fighting strategies, and actual policing in cities. However, it seems that a combination of exaggerated hopes produced by technology evangelists, media hype, and ignorance of the actual problems of the technology may have (over-)boosted sales of software that supports policing by predicting offenders and crime areas. In this paper we analyse currently used predictive policing software packages with respect to common problems of data mining, and describe challenges that arise in the context of their socio-technical application.

Keywords

Predictive policing Data mining Privacy Big data 

References

  1. Anderson C (2008) The end of theory: the data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired Mag 16(7):16Google Scholar
  2. Azavea (2015) HunchLab under the hood. https://cdn.azavea.com/pdfs/hunchlab/HunchLab-Under-the-Hood.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2017
  3. Barocas S, Selbst AD (2016) Big Data’s disparate impact. 104 California Law Review 671. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2477899
  4. Berendt B (2012) More than modelling and hiding: towards a comprehensive view of web mining and privacy. Data Min Knowl Discov 24(3):697–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Biermann K (2015) Predictive policing: noch hat niemand bewiesen, dass data mining der Polizei hilft. Die Zeit, March 29, sec. Digital. http://www.zeit.de/digital/datenschutz/2015-03/predictive-policing-software-polizei-precobs/komplettansicht
  6. Blumer A, Ehrenfeucht A, Haussler D, Warmuth MK (1990) Occam’s Razor. In: Readings in machine learning. pp 201–204Google Scholar
  7. Caplan JM, Kennedy LW (2011) Risk terrain modeling compendium: for crime analysis. Rutgers Center on Public Security, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  8. Chainey S, Ratcliffe J (2013) GIS and crime mapping. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  9. Citron DK (2007) Technological due process. Wash Univ Law Rev 85:1249–1313Google Scholar
  10. Coudert F (2015) ‘Precrime police’ is not for 2054, it’s for now: how to regulate ‘data intensive policing’? In: Amsterdam privacy conference, Amsterdam, 23–26 October 2015Google Scholar
  11. Drawve G (2014) A metric comparison of predictive hot spot techniques and RTM. Justice Q 33:1–29. doi:10.1080/07418825.2014.904393 Google Scholar
  12. ECJ/Court of Justice of the European Union (2016). Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 21 December 2016. Tele2 Sverige AB v Post- och telestyrelsen and Secretary of State for the Home Department v Tom Watson and Others. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:62015CJ0203
  13. Eterno JA, Verma A, Silverman EB (2016) Police manipulations of crime reporting: insiders’ revelations. Justice Q 33(5):811–835. doi:10.1080/07418825.2014.980838 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ferguson AG (2015) Big Data and predictive reasonable suspicion. Univ Pennsylvania Law Rev 1632:327–410Google Scholar
  15. Gorner J (2013) Chicago police use heat list as strategy to prevent violence. Chic Tribune 21:2013. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-08-21/news/ct-met-heat-list-20130821_1_chicago-police-commander-andrew-papachristos-heat-list
  16. Hunt P, Saunders J, Hollywood JS (2014). Evaluation of the shreveport predictive policing experiment. Research Report RR-531-NIJ. RAND Corp. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR531.html
  17. Johnson SD (2008) Repeat burglary victimisation: a tale of two theories. J Exp Criminol 4(3):215–240. doi:10.1007/s11292-008-9055-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jouvenal J (2016) The new way police are surveilling you: calculating your threat ‘score’. The Washington Post, January 10. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-way-police-are-surveilling-you-calculating-your-threat-score/2016/01/10/e42bccac-8e15-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html
  19. Lipton ZC (2016) The mythos of model interpretability. In: ICML 2016 workshop on human interpretability in machine learning (WHI 2016). http://zacklipton.com/media/papers/mythos_model_interpretability_lipton2016.pdf
  20. Lum K, Isaac W (2016) To predict and serve? Significance 13(5):14–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer-Schönberger V, Cukier K (2013) Big Data: a revolution that will transform how we live, work and think. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Meaney R (2004) Commuters and marauders: an examination of the spatial behaviour of serial criminals. J Investig Psychol Offen Profil 1(2):121–137. doi:10.1002/jip.12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mohler G, Short M (2012) Geographic profiling from kinetic models of criminal behavior. SIAM J Appl Math 72(1):163–180. doi:10.1137/100794080 MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Mohler GO, Short MB, Brantingham PJ, Schoenberg FP, Tita GE (2012) Self-exciting point process modeling of crime. J Am Stat Assoc. doi:10.1198/jasa.2011.ap09546 MATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohler G et al (2013) Modeling and estimation of multi-source clustering in crime and security data. Ann Appl Stat 7(3):1525–1539MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Mohler GO, Short MB, Malinowski S, Johnson M, Tita GE, Bertozzi AL, Brantingham PJ (2015) Randomized controlled field trials of predictive policing. J Am Stat Assoc. doi:10.1080/01621459.2015.1077710 MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  27. Morozov E (2013) To save everything, click here: technology, solutionism, and the urge to fix problems that don’t exist. Allen Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar
  28. Papachristos AV (2009) Murder by structure: dominance relations and the social structure of gang homicide1. Am J Sociol 115(1):74–128. doi:10.1086/597791 MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Perry WL, McInnis B, Price CC, Smith S, Hollywood JS (2013) Predictive policing—the role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. Research Report RR-233-NIJ. RAND Corp. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR233.html
  30. Saunders J, Hunt P, Hollywood JS (2016) Predictions put into practice: a quasi-experimental evaluation of Chicago’s predictive policing pilot. J Exp Criminol. doi:10.1007/s11292-016-9272-0 Google Scholar
  31. Short MB, D’Orsogna MR, Brantingham PJ, Tita GE (2009) Measuring and modeling repeat and near-repeat burglary effects. J Quant Criminol 25(3):325–339. doi:10.1007/s10940-009-9068-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Short Martin B, Jeffrey Brantingham P, Bertozzi Andrea L, Tita George E (2010) Dissipation and displacement of hotspots in reaction-diffusion models of crime. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(9):3961–3965. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910921107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Solove D (2011) Nothing to hide. The false trade-off between privacy and security. Yale University Press, YaleGoogle Scholar
  34. Solove DJ (2006) A taxonomy of privacy. Univ Pa Law Rev 154(3): 477. GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 129. https://ssrn.com/abstract=667622
  35. Stroud M (2014) The minority report: Chicago’s new police computer predicts crimes, but is it racist? The Verge, 19 Feb 2014. http://www.theverge.com/2014/2/19/5419854/the-minority-report-this-computer-predicts-crime-but-is-it-racist
  36. Townsley M, Homel Ross, Chaseling Janet (2003) infectious burglaries. A test of the near repeat hypothesis. Br J Criminol 43(3):615–633. doi:10.1093/bjc/43.3.615 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Trotta M (2010) Serial offenders’ spatial behaviour: revisiting the marauder/commuter dichotomy. In: Presented at the 10th conference of the european society of criminology, Liège. Retrieved from http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/73623
  38. Van Alsenoy B, Kuczerawy A, Ausloos J (2013) Search engines after ‘Google Spain’: Internet@Liberty or Privacy@Peril? TPRC 41. In: The 41st research conference on communication, information and internet policy. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2321494
  39. Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA (2011) Data mining. Practical machine learning tools and techniques, 3rd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  40. Yang M, Coid J (2010) The efficacy of violence prediction: a meta-analytic comparison of nine risk assessment tools. Psychol Bull 136(5):740–767. doi:10.1037/a0020473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zeng J, Ustun B, Rudin C (2016) Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction. In: Presentation at FATML 2016. New York, 18 November 2017. https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07810

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Software ResearchSchool of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Declarative Languages and Artificial Intelligence GroupDepartment of Computer Science, KU LeuvenHeverleeBelgium

Personalised recommendations