Advertisement

Artificial Intelligence and Law Enforcement

  • Timo RademacherEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Artificial intelligence is increasingly able to autonomously detect suspicious activities (‘smart’ law enforcement). In certain domains, technology already fulfills the task of detecting suspicious activities better than human police officers ever could. In such areas, i.e. if and where smart law enforcement technologies actually work well enough, legislators and law enforcement agencies should consider their use. Unfortunately, the German Constitutional Court, the European Court of Justice, and the US Supreme Court are all struggling to develop convincing and clear-cut guidelines to direct these legislative and administrative considerations. This article attempts to offer such guidance: First, lawmakers need to implement regulatory provisions in order to maintain human accountability if AI-based law enforcement technologies are to be used. Secondly, AI law enforcement should be used, if and where possible, to overcome discriminatory traits in human policing that have plagued some jurisdictions for decades. Finally, given that smart law enforcement promises an ever more effective and even ubiquitous enforcement of the law—a ‘perfect’ rule of law, in that sense—it invites us as democratic societies to decide if, where, and when we might wish to preserve the freedom to disobey the rule(s) of law.

References

  1. Algorithm Watch, BertelsmannStiftung (2019) Automating Society. Taking stock of automated decision-making in the EU. www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did/automating-society. Accessed 21 Feb 2019
  2. Andrews L (2019) Algorithms, regulation, and governance readiness. In: Yeung K, Lodge M (eds) Algorithmic regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Associated Press (2018) Israel claims 200 attacks predicted, prevented with data tech. CBS News. www.cbsnews.com/news/israel-data-algorithms-predict-terrorism-palestinians-privacy-civil-liberties. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  4. Bachmeier L (2018) Countering terrorism: suspects without suspicion and (pre-)suspects under surveillance. In: Sieber U, Mitsilegas V, Mylonopoulos C, Billis E, Knust N (eds) Alternative systems of crime control. Duncker&Humblodt, Berlin, pp 171–191Google Scholar
  5. Barret B (2016) New surveillance system may let cops use all of the cameras. Wired. www.wired.com/2016/05/new-surveillance-system-let-cops-use-cameras. Accessed 16 Nov 2018
  6. Becker M (2019) Von der Freiheit, rechtswidrig handeln zu können. Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht 64:636–648Google Scholar
  7. Bieker F, Bremert B, Hansen M (2018) Verantwortlichkeit und Einsatz von Algorithmen bei öffentlichen Stellen. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit:608–612Google Scholar
  8. Bier W, Spiecker gen Döhmann I (2012) Intelligente Videoüberwachungstechnik: Schreckensszenario oder Gewinn für Datenschutz. Computer und Recht:610–618Google Scholar
  9. Big Brother Watch (2018) Face off. The lawless growth of facial recognition in UK policing. https://www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Face-Off-final-digital-1.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  10. Birnstill P, Ren D, Beyerer J (2015) A user study on anonymization techniques for smart video surveillance. IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=7301805. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  11. Böckenförde T (2008) Auf dem Weg zur elektronischen Privatsphäre. JuristenZeitung 63:925–939Google Scholar
  12. Bouachir W, Gouiaa R, Li B, Noumeir R (2018) Intelligent video surveillance for real-time detection of suicide attempts. Pattern Recogn Lett 110:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brantingham PJ, Valasik M, Mohler GO (2018) Does predictive policing lead to biased arrests? Results from a randomized controlled trial. Stat Public Policy 5:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brühl J (2018) Wo die Polizei alles sieht. Süddeutsche Zeitung. www.sueddeutsche.de/digital/palantir-in-deutschland-wo-die-polizei-alles-sieht-1.4173809. Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  15. Bundesministerium des Innern (2018) Pressemitteilung. Projekt zur Gesichtserkennung erfolgreich. www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/pressemitteilungen/DE/2018/10/gesichtserkennung-suedkreuz.html. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  16. Bundestag (2018) Antwort der Bundesregiegung auf die Kleine Anfrage ‘Umsetzung der EU-Richtlinie zur Vorratsdatenspeicherung von Fluggastdaten’. BT-Drucksache 19/4755Google Scholar
  17. Burkert H (2012) Balancing informational power by information power, or rereading Montesquieu in the internet age. In: Brousseau E, Marzouki M, Méadel C (eds) Governance, regulations and powers on the internet. CUP, Cambridge, pp 93–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Candamo J, Shreve M, Goldgof D, Sapper D, Kasturi R (2010) Understanding transit scenes: a survey on human behavior recognition algorithms. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 11:206–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Capers IB (2017) Race, policing, and technology. N C Law Rev 95:1241–1292Google Scholar
  20. Caplan J, Kennedy L (2016) Risk terrain modeling. University of California Press, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  21. Chaos Computer Club (2018) Biometrische Videoüberwachung: Der Südkreuz-Versuch war kein Erfolg. www.ccc.de/de/updates/2018/debakel-am-suedkreuz. Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  22. Cheng E (2006) Structural laws and the puzzle of regulating behavior. Northwest Univ School Law 100:655–718Google Scholar
  23. Davenport T (2016) How Big Data is helping the NYPD solve crime faster. Fortune. fortune.com/2016/07/17/big-data-nypd-situational-awareness. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  24. Degeling M, Berendt B (2017) What is wrong about Robocops as consultants? A technology-centric critique of predictive policing. AI & Soc 33:347–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Demetis D (2018) Fighting money laundering with technology: a case study of Bank X in the UK. Decis Support Syst 105:96–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dimitrova D (2018) Data protection within police and judicial cooperation. In: Hofmann HCH, Rowe GC, Türk AH (eds) Specialized administrative law of the European Union. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 204–233Google Scholar
  27. Dwork C, Hardt M, Pitassi T, Reingold O, Zemel R (2011) Fairness through awareness. arXiv.org/pdf/1104.3913.pdf. Accessed 29 Nov 2017
  28. Eidenmüller H (2017) The rise of robots and the law of humans. Oxford Legal Studies Paper. Ssrn.com/abstract=2941001. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  29. Eubanks V (2018) A child abuse prediction model fails poor families. Wired. www.wired.com/story/excerpt-from-automating-inequality. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  30. Ferguson AG (2014) Fourth amendment security in public. William Mary Law Rev 55:1283–1364Google Scholar
  31. Ferguson AG (2015) Big data and predictive reasonable suspicion. Univ Pa Law Rev 163:327–410Google Scholar
  32. Ferguson AG (2017) The rise of big data policing. New York University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hacker P (2018) Teaching fairness to artificial intelligence: existing and novel strategies against algorithmic discrimination under EU law. Common Mark Law Rev 55:1143–1186Google Scholar
  34. Harcourt B, Meares T (2011) Randomization and the fourth amendment. U Chi L Rev 78:809–877Google Scholar
  35. Hartzog W, Conti G, Nelson J, Shay LA (2015) Inefficiently automated law enforcement. Mich State Law Rev:1763–1796Google Scholar
  36. Heinemann M (2015) Grundrechtlicher Schutz informationstechnischer Systeme. Schriften zum Öffentlichen Recht, vol 1304. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Henderson SE (2016) Fourth amendment time machines (and what they might say about police body cameras). J Constit Law 18:933–973Google Scholar
  38. Hildebrandt M (2016) Law as information in the era of data-driven agency. Mod Law Rev 79:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hoffmann-Riem W (2008) Der grundrechtliche Schutz der Vertraulichkeit und Integrität eigengenutzer informationstechnischer Systeme. JuristenZeitung 63:1009–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hoffmann-Riem W (2017) Verhaltenssteuerung durch Algorithmen – Eine Herausforderung für das Recht. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 142:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Joh E (2014) Policing by numbers: big data and the fourth amendment. Wash Law Rev 89:35–68Google Scholar
  42. Joh E (2016) The new surveillance discretion: automated suspicion, big data, and policing. Harv Law Policy Rev 10:15–42Google Scholar
  43. Joh E (2019) Policing the smart city. International Journal of Law in Context 15:177–182Google Scholar
  44. Kroll JA, Huey J, Barocas S, Felten EW, Reidenberg JR, Robinson DG, Yu H (2017) Accountable algorithms. Univ Pa Law Rev 165:633–705Google Scholar
  45. Lismont J, Cardinaels E, Bruynseels L, De Goote S, Baesens B, Lemahieu W, Vanthienen J (2018) Predicting tax avoidance by means of social network analytics. Decis Support Syst 108:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marks A, Bowling B, Keenan C (2017) Automatic justice? In: Brownsword R, Scotford E, Yeung K (eds) The Oxford handbook of law, regulation, and technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 705–730Google Scholar
  47. Marsch N (2012) Die objektive Funktion der Verfassungsbeschwerde in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 137:592–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Marsch N (2018) Das europäische Datenschutzgrundrecht. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. May J (2018) Drug enforcement agency turns to A.I. to help sniff out doping athletes. Digital trends. https://www.digitaltrends.com/outdoors/wada-artificial-intelligence-doping-athletes. Accessed 23 Oct 2019
  50. McKay S (2015) Covert policing. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  51. Mulligan CM (2008) Perfect enforcement of law: when to limit and when to use technology. Richmond J Law Technol 14:1–49Google Scholar
  52. Murphy E (2007) The new forensics: criminal justice, false certainty, and the second generation of scientific evidence. Calif Law Rev 95:721–797Google Scholar
  53. Oermann M, Staben J (2013) Mittelbare Grundrechtseingriffe durch Abschreckung? DER STAAT 52:630–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Oganesian C, Heermann Th (2018) China: Der durchleuchtete Mensch – Das chinesische Socia-Credit-System. ZD-Aktuell:06124Google Scholar
  55. Oldiges M (1987) Einheit der Verwaltung als Rechtsproblem. Neue Zeitschrift für Verwaltungsrecht 1987:737–744Google Scholar
  56. Orwell G (1949) Nineteen eighty-four. Secker & Warburg, LondonGoogle Scholar
  57. Pelzer R (2018) Policing terrorism using data from social media. Eur J Secur Res 3:163–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Petroski W (2018) Iowa Senate OKs ban on traffic enforcement cameras as foes predict more traffic deaths. Des Moines Register. https://eu.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/27/traffic-enforcementcameras-banned-under-bill-passed-iowa-senate/357336002. Accessed 23 Oct 2019
  59. Poscher R (2017) The right to data protection. In: Miller R (ed) Privacy and power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rademacher T (2017) Predictive Policing im deutschen Polizeirecht. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 142:366–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rademacher T (2019) Wenn neue Technologien altes Recht durchsetzen: Dürfen wir es unmöglich machen, rechtswidrig zu handeln? JuristenZeitung 74:702–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reidenberg J (1998) Lex Informatica: the formulation of information policy rules through technology. Tex Law Rev 76:553–593Google Scholar
  63. Rich M (2013) Should we make crime impossible? Harv J Law Public Policy 36:795–848Google Scholar
  64. Rich M (2016) Machine learning, automated suspicion algorithms, and the fourth amendment. Univ Pa Law Rev 164:871–929Google Scholar
  65. Richards NM (2013) The dangers of surveillance. Harv Law Rev 126:1934–1965Google Scholar
  66. Rosenthal D (2011) Assessing digital preemption (and the future of law enforcement?). New Crim Law Rev 14:576–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. RWI Essen (2018) “Erfolgreiche” Gesichtserkennung mit hunderttausend Fehlalarmen. http://www.rwi-essen.de/unstatistik/84. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  68. Samek W, Wiegand T, Müller K-R (2017) Explainable artificial intelligence: understanding, visualizing and interpreting deep learning models. arXiv:1708.08296v1. Accessed 25 Oct 2019Google Scholar
  69. Saracco R (2017) An artificial intelligence ‘nose’ to sniff diseases: EIT Digital. https://www.eitdigital.eu/newsroom/blog/article/an-artificial-intelligence-nose-to-sniff-diseases. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  70. Saunders J, Hunt P, Hollywood JS (2016) Predictions put into practice: a quasi-experimental evaluation of Chicago’s predictive policing pilot. J Exp Criminol 12:347–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Scantamburlo T, Charlesworth A, Cristianini N (2019) Machine decisions and human consequences. In: Yeung K, Lodge M (eds) Algorithmic regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 49–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schlossberg T (2015) New York police begin using ShotSpotter system to detect gunshots. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/17/nyregion/shotspotter-detection-system-pinpoints-gunshot-locations-and-sends-data-to-the-police.html. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  73. Seidensticker K, Bode F, Stoffel F (2018) Predictive policing in Germany. http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-2-14sbvox1ik0z06. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  74. Singelnstein T (2018) Predictive Policing: Algorithmenbasierte Straftatenprognosen zur vorausschauenden Kriminalintervention. Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht:1–9Google Scholar
  75. Solove DJ (2007) ‘I’ve got nothing to hide’ and other misunderstandings of privacy. San Diego Law Rev 44:745–772Google Scholar
  76. Spice B (2015) Carnegie Mellon developing online tool to detect and identify sex traffickers. www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2015/january/detecting-sex-traffickers.html. Accessed 24 Oct 2019
  77. Staben J (2016) Der Abschreckungseffekt auf die Grundrechtsausübung. Internet und Gesellschaft, vol 6. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  78. Thomas S, Gupta S, Subramanian V (2017) Smart surveillance based on video summarization. IEEE. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8070003. Accessed 29 Nov 2018
  79. Throckmorton CS, Mayew WJ, Venkatachalam M, Collins LM (2015) Financial fraud detection using vocal, linguistic and financial cues. Decis Support Syst 74:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Timan T, Galic M, Koops B-J (2018) Surveillance theory and its implications for law. In: Brownsword R, Scotford E, Yeung K (eds) The Oxford handbook of law, regulation, and technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 731–753Google Scholar
  81. Trute HH (2009) Grenzen des präventionsorientierten Polizeirechts in der Rechtsprechung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts. Die Verwaltung 42:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tyler TR (1990) Why people obey the law. Yale University Press, New Haven and LondonGoogle Scholar
  83. Waltl B, Vogl R (2018) Increasing transparency in algorithmic decision-making with explainable AI. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit:613–617Google Scholar
  84. Wendt K (2018) Zunehmender Einsatz intelligenter Videoüberwachung. ZD-Aktuell:06122Google Scholar
  85. Wittmann P (2014) Der Schutz der Privatsphäre vor staatlichen Überwachungsmaßnahmen durch die US-amerikanische Bundesverfassung. Nomos, Baden-BadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wysk P (2018) Tausche Freiheit gegen Sicherheit? Die polizeiliche Videoüberwachung im Visier des Datenschutzrechts. Verwaltungsarchiv 109:141–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zetter K (2012) Public buses across country quietly adding microphones to record passenger conversations. Wired. www.wired.com/2012/12/public-bus-audio-surveillance. Accessed 26 Nov 2018

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations