Should Police be Allowed to Use Crime Predictive Technology?


Weapons of Math Destruction

To what extent, does Cathy O’Neil in Chapter 5 of Weapons of Math Destruction argue that police should be allowed to use crime predictive technologies for the purpose of keeping communities safe?

Do you agree or disagree with this?

Do you believe it is an example of systems of power as oppressive forces?

Explain your reasoning by analyzing at least two separate models of policing (ex: foot patrol in certain areas, stop and frisk, broken windows theory, profiling, etc.) while describing their impact on the community.


The Crime rate in poor communities prioritizing the crimes at the top, unfairness the variation in based on seismic software . Cathy O’ Neil, an american mathematician and author .Demonstrated how data crime prediction software. Predictive programs like PredPol are in rage in budget strapped. Weapons and Math Destruction. With technology certain input data, mathematical models dominated law enforcement.using artificial intelligence to stop crime provides a massive margin for error, since technology only works wonders if a human is behind the control system. Mathematics,and WMDs broken windows to zero tolerance, represent a simply model. The author shows how the crime came predictive by data because the majority of crime provides from software information that people provides and the secrets of big data. In poor people are responsible for their own commit most of a city’s crimes.

In weapons of math destruction technology have to be used with the idea that only maintain order but not imposing crime-fighting model.” PredPol crimes  models have their virtues”.Neil says “ the idea was that low-level crimes and created an atmosphere of disorder in a neighborhood.” the side of dark can be so catastrophic for city’s with poor conditions  in the Big Data space would journey to disillusionment was more or less complete” which means people being manipulated by algorithms.  Some people are truly alarmed in their jobs for in the issue of the secrets of data.  In fact the developers of crime software are hurting to incorporate any information Cathy O’ express the following words when she aclared the similar crime prediction she said “ it looks at a crime in one area, incorporates it into  historical patterns and predicts when and where it might occur next” this means police on foot patrol did not reduce crimes rate. people felt more secure even though crime did not go down. The author states that people are most frightening by crime and the fear of being bothered by disorderly people.

Personally I’m agree with Cathy O’ Neil in her opinion about data educacional equity systems in crime predictive technology informed guess about crime through technology, PredPol crime predictive occurred and predict where they will happen again high number of police in the area. Article from 1982, “Broken Windows” policy is the basis for how we still predict crime,people stripped it apart completely within an hour the theory of this people will continue to destroy break something in “foot patrol” keep the order made people feel more secure even through crime didn’t go down.

Many activists, defenders of civil rights and legal experts see the opposite, that predictive technology stokes community resentment by unfairly targeting innocent people, minorities and the vulnerable, and threatens Fourth Amendment safeguards against unreasonable search and seizure. Transparency is essential because much of the potential for abuse depends on the integrity of the data used by the predictive software.  data would distort predictions and judgments about their value but since police culture resists revealing its methods, crime data is generally closed to examine . It is hard to determine if the incidence of crime has been underreported Issues with predictive methods are amplified in stop-and-frisk policing, where a police officer may stop and search anyone who shows ‘reasonable’ signs of criminal activity.algorithms, thus weakening Fourth Amendment rights, especially among minorities.

Even without a full stop-and-frisk approach, predictive policing means that more people, whether innocent or guilty, are scrutinised in hot zones.following a computer program that directs more officers to a certain location at a certain time does nothing to guarantee fair and effective use of that force. Yet algorithms can augment human abilities rather than replace them. For officers on the street, we might find that combining personal experience with guidance from predictive software enables them to deal better with what they encounter daily.Algorithms used in social network software can identify different kinds of exchanges, communications, family ties or forms of affiliations an individual has within a social network, helping the police visualise the structure of a criminal organization and eventually recognise those with influence or those who transmit information within the group. Similarly to the previous case, such technology-led analysis finds its roots in criminology theory and its assumption that social networks are at the base of many crimes.

Works cited

  • Broken Windows. Douglass, Carl. Though They Come from the Ends of the Earth: a Novel of the Iran Nuclear Weapons Interdiction .. Publication Consultants, 2104.
  • O’Neil, Cathy. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. Penguin Books, 2018.
  • Book notes in class 2018


The post Should Police be Allowed to Use Crime Predictive Technology? appeared first on mynursinghomeworks.


Source link