Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 49–58 | Cite as

Algorithmic paranoia: the temporal governmentality of predictive policing

  • Bonnie SheeheyEmail author
Original Paper


In light of the recent emergence of predictive techniques in law enforcement to forecast crimes before they occur, this paper examines the temporal operation of power exercised by predictive policing algorithms. I argue that predictive policing exercises power through a paranoid style that constitutes a form of temporal governmentality. Temporality is especially pertinent to understanding what is ethically at stake in predictive policing as it is continuous with a historical racialized practice of organizing, managing, controlling, and stealing time. After first clarifying the concept of temporal governmentality, I apply this lens to Chicago Police Department’s Strategic Subject List. This predictive algorithm operates, I argue, through a paranoid logic that aims to preempt future possibilities of crime on the basis of a criminal past codified in historical crime data.


Algorithms Predictive policing Power Ethics Time 


  1. Adamson, C. R. (1983). Punishment after slavery: Southern state penal systems, 1865-1890. Social Problems, 30(5), 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, M. (2012). The new jim crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  3. Amoore, L. (2013). The politics of possibility: Risk and security beyond probability. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ananny, M. (2016). Toward and ethics of algorithms: Convening, observation, probability, and timeliness. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 41(1), 93–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ananny, M., & Crawford, K (2016). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society. Scholar
  6. Barocas, S., & Selbst, A. D. (2016). Big data’s disparate impact. California Law Review, 104, 671–732.Google Scholar
  7. Bass, S. (2001). Policing space, policing race: Social control imperatives and police discretionary decisions. Social Justice, 28(1), 156–176.Google Scholar
  8. Beck, C., & McCue, C. (2009). Predictive policing: What we can learn from Wal-Mart and Amazon about fighting crime during a recession. The Police Chief, 76(11), 20–29.Google Scholar
  9. Beer, D. (2009). Power through the algorithm? Participatory web cultures and the technological unconscious. New Media & Society, 11(6), 985–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Beer, D. (2017). The social power of algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bratton, W., Morgan, J., & Malinowski, S. (2009). Fighting crime in the information age: The promise of predictive policing. Draft. Retrieved from
  12. Bucher, T. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheney-Lippold, J. (2011). A new algorithmic identity: Soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(6), 164–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chicago Police Department. (2015). “Custom notifications in Chicago.” Accessed 16 Mar 2017.
  15. Chicago Police Department. (2016). “Strategic Subject List (SSL) dashboard.” Accessed 16 Mar 2017.
  16. Coates, T.-N. (2015). Between the world and me. New York: Spiegal & Grau.Google Scholar
  17. Collier, S. J. (2009). Topologies of power: Foucault’s analysis of political government beyond ‘governmentality’. Theory, Culture & Society, 26(6), 78–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooper, B. (2017). The racial politics of time (video). Retrieved from
  19. Davey, M. (2016). “Chicago police try to predict who may shoot or be shot.” Accessed 16 Mar 2017.
  20. Esposito, E. (2015). Beyond the promise of security: Uncertainty as resource. Telos, 170, 89–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Foucault, M. (1975/1997). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  23. Foucault, M. (1976/1978). The history of sexuality, volume 1: The will to know. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (2000). Essential works, volume 3: Power. In J. Faubion & P. Rabinow (Eds.), New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (2004/2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–1979. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  26. Friedman, B., & Nissenbaum, H. (1996). Bias in computer systems. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), 14(3), 330–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gillespie (2016). Algorithm. In B. Peters (Ed.), Digital keywords: A vocabulary of information society and culture (pp. 18–30). Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–193). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gitelman, L. (Ed.). (2013). ‘Raw Data’ is an oxymoron. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: An introduction. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The foucault effect: Studies in governmentality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Harcourt, B. E. (2007). Against prediction: Profiling, policing, and punishing in an actuarial age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hofstadter, R. (1965). The paranoid style in American politics and other essays. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  33. Introna, L. D. (2016). Algorithms, governance, and governmentality. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(1), 17–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kaplan, J. (2017). Predictive policing and the long road to transparency. South Side Weekly. Retrieved July 12, 2017, from transparency/.
  35. Koopman, C. (2013). Genealogy as critique: Foucault and the problems of modernity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Koopman, C. (2014). Michel Foucault’s critical empiricism Today: Concepts and analytics in the critique of biopower and infopower. In J. D. Faubion (Ed.), Foucault now: Current perspectives in Foucault studies (pp. 88–111). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  37. Kraemer, F., van Overveld, K., & Peterson, M. (2011). Is there an ethics of algorithms? Ethics and Information Technology, 13(3), 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kunichoff, Y., & Sier P (2017). The contradictions of Chicago Police’s Secretive List. Chicago Magazine. Retrieved August 21, 2017, from List/.
  39. Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France (A. Sheridan & J. Law, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Lemke, T. (2001). ‘The birth of bio-politics’: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2), 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lyon, D. (2014). Surveillance, snowden, and big data: Capacities, consequences, critique. Big Data & Society, 2014, 1–13.Google Scholar
  42. Maguire, M. (2000). Policing by risks and targets: Some dimensions and implications of intelligence-led crime control. Policing and Society, 9(4), 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mann, C. R. (1993). Unequal justice: A question of color. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Martinez, M. (2016). “Going inside the Chicago police department’s ‘Strategic Subject List.’” Accessed 16 Mar 2017.
  45. McCulloch, J., & Wilson, D (2016). Pre-crime: Pre-emption, precaution and the future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Mills, C. W. (2014). White time: The chronic injustice of ideal theory. Du Bois Review, 11(1), 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mittelstadt, B., Daniel, P., Allo, M., Taddeo, S. W., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 2016, 1–21.Google Scholar
  48. Moses, L. B., & Chan, J. (2016) Algorithmic prediction in policing: Assumptions, evaluation, and accountability. Policing and Society. Scholar
  49. National Institute of Justice. (2009). Predictive policing symposiums. Retrieved from
  50. O’Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. New York: Crown.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearsall, B. (2009) Predictive policing: The future of law enforcement? NIJ Journal, 266, 16–19.Google Scholar
  52. Posadas, B. (2017). How strategic is Chicago’s ‘Strategic Subject List’? Upturn investigates. Medium. Retrieved June 22, 2017, from
  53. Robinson, D., & Koepke, L. (2016). Stuck in a pattern: Early evidence on ‘predictive policing’ and civil rights. Upturn report: pp 1–29. Retrieved from
  54. Rose, N. S., O’Malley, P., & Valverde, M. (2006). Governmentality. Annual Review of Law and Society, 2, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Russell, K. K. (1998). The color of crime: Racial hoaxes, white fear, black protectionism, police harassment, and other macroaggressions. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Saunders, J., Hunt, P., & Hollywood, J. S. (2016). Predictions put into practice: A quasi-experimental evaluation of Chicago’s predictive policing pilot. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12, 347–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sedgwick, E. K. (2003). Touching feeling: Affect, pedagogy, performativity. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, D. (2018). Algorithmic patrol: The futures of predictive policing. In A. Završnik (Ed.), Big data, crime and social control. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Završnik, A. (Ed.). (2018). Big data, crime and social control. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Zedner, L. (2007). Pre-crime and post-criminology? Theoretical Criminology, 11(2), 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ziewitz, M. (2016). Governing algorithms: Myth, mess, and methods. Science, Technology & Human Values, 41(1), 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OregonEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations