Wow. And sadly many "small government", "pro police" folks are for this until they find themselves on the list. Those that support 'law and order' (authoritarian values, as opposed to 'orderly justice' values) never think they'll be wrongly accused or harassed until it's too late. "First they came for the ..."
It's interesting to see you victim blaming instead of trying to bridge the gap with folks that could be sympathetic with your viewpoint.
Or did you change positions to at the same time they did? I've noticed a lot of the "big government" "anti police state" (used with maximum sarcasm) folks suddenly start praising the things they spent a decade railing against now that its domestic white religious conservatives instead of foreign brown religious conservatives that are the target.
It might shock you to find out that the lockdowns were a wakeup call to the reality of policing for many of those "quotes" you stereotype.
> The Pasco Sheriff’s Office keeps a secret list of kids it thinks could “fall into a life of crime” based on factors like whether they’ve been abused or gotten a D or an F in school, according to the agency's internal intelligence manual. The Sheriff’s Office assembles the list by combining the rosters for most middle and high schools in the county with records so sensitive, they’re protected by state and federal law. Four hundred and twenty kids are on the list ... The Sheriff’s Office said it does not inform students or their parents if they’ve been added to its list of potential future criminals.
Isn't this illegal? How is the student data making its way into the sheriff department's hands?
This reminds me of the 1990 film Pump Up The Volume [0] where the school's dean was creating dossiers on singled out students, which was eventually portrayed as a criminal act in the end.
Your article doesn’t seem to have any stats. Can you back up the assertion that they are not spending their enforcing laws? You have a lot of handwaving about the history of police departments and pushback against like bodycams but nothing concrete.
The police in my area spend most of their time enforcing traffic laws, responding to domestic disturbances, etc. Murders are taken very seriously, regardless of who was murdered.
Based on my actual experience living with police in a boring suburbia, your article comes across as completely out of touch with reality due to no actual experience.
Have you considered that the reason there isn’t an explicit law that police have to respond to a given call is because there is immense political and therefore organizational pressure for them to do so? The county sheriff or the mayor would get voted out if that was a pattern in our local government and then police leaders would get fired.
I’m replying to a German pontificating on how US police work because of a history article he/she read and some national news. My anecdote is indeed an anecdote but it’s proof that his/her generalization is bullshit.
What's your source for this? I'm very interested to see it, because this is an issue that I've been following for a few years and I haven't yet seen any data that supports this claim.
Part of this police department's intelligence program was posted on HN[1] before. The body cam footage[2] from it is horrifying.
Here's a summary of the program and how the department feels about it and those they target[3]:
> The motivation of the program is more sinister than merely “fighting crime”: The Sheriff’s Office acknowledged that they want these “problem people” gone. Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco, the architect of the program, boasted that the goal was to predict which residents are likely to commit crimes and then “take them out.” In the words of a former Pasco County deputy, they were under orders to “[m]ake their lives miserable until they move or sue.”
Awful. I read the GP comment about a list of at-risk kids and my first thought was outreach so that they grow with an appreciation of their community, the police, etc but the cops are instead intent on turning prospective criminals into actual criminals. Insane.
I'd argue that by their own criteria, every member of the Pasco Sheriffs Office should be on this list, given that rates of domestic violence are 2-4x higher in police household than US households in general.
edit: Someone posted an unredacted version of the 2018 version of the Pasco Sheriffs Office ILP manual in another comment. Appendix B lays out the specific criteria they use. It appears they tally up the number arrests or bookings (but "suspicions" are not counted). I'm not a criminal law expert, but it sounds like that just means the more times the cops haul you in the higher your score is, even if you're never convicted of any of it.
So my initial comment wasn't quite right. Their criteria provides even more incentive to not book fellow cops for misbehavior, as that happening too many times (even if nothing comes of it) would make them pop on this list.
I have a couple of friends who were regularly arrested by the police, and kept over the weekend until they would drop charges. Naturally the more it happened the more they would tell the cops how they really feel, continuing the circle of life.
This letter is in a foreign language called "big city liberal democrat caught between burn the world marxists and panicked townsfolk running from the movie monster of failed activist government policies". Here. Let me translate:
KID!
YOU ABOUT TO BE MERKED BY HARD CORE CRIMINALS. WE KNOW. WE'RE THE COPS. SEE YOU ON THE CORONER SLAB.
Reading the articles, I've found the Pasco Sheriff ILP manual[0] in question which was obtained by Tampa Bay Times. The section specifically relating to kids is on Page 70. Interesting read, though I haven't had much time to ingest all the details.
It appears as if the sheriffs have been creating dossiers since 2011. Is sheriffs really this well funded in Florida? Where i am from, the sheriff is essentially the court agent, transporting prisoners, seizing defaulted property, serving some process, etc
If you are well informed, I am interested in learning about the analytics and tools they are using. The report mentions CompStat, Problem Oriented Policing and a methodology called SARA (scan assess respond analyze) as well as post-9/11 derived information sharing developments. They have ALPR and video feeds from some in their community as well they are using, and also mention in passing facial recognition to identify the unidentified.. uh whoever.
Appendix B (pg 76) contains the extremely dystopianly named Prolific Offender Calculation, which I think is the criteria applied to the letter recipients in this article
Now murder's only one crime, and I haven't done any sophisticated comparison (e.g. how does this compare to population growth, national or state trends, etc.). But it's not obvious that this is a program that is paying off.
If you're doing something this obnoxious, you'd better have a really big, positive payoff to point to.
More than that, it would have to have to be statistically significant versus crime in similar counties, cities, and the country as a whole. Some quick searches[0] show an overall crime drop in the USA since 1999, ~2010, and certainly the beginning of the reporting period. Unless this activity is nationwide, which given the usual nature of the policing policy, I reject out of hand.
One consideration about the 1990s crime drop should be the Lead-crime hypothesis[1], which basically refers to the banning and reduction of lead in fuel and consumer products in the 1970's bearing fruits a couple of decades later as people begin to mature in a less toxic environment. The information I have reviewed[2] about the US and even internationally[3] is quite compelling to me. Motherjones has collected all of this information.[4]
There could be a similar phenomenon (not necessarily environmental, but prop65 passed in 1986 and there is also the 1974 SDWA[5] with substantial amendments in 1986, and 1996, as well as numerous changes in the period about the 1990s) affecting the country after about ~2000 and again ~2010, but I do not know of any other information supporting this analysis.
How is it that the police have the time of day to do this? Aren’t there homicides and cold cases to go over? Rape and domestic violence cases to persecute?
This is the result of overfunding. If there is no work to do then work will be created. In this case that work is actively harmful to the people who fund the department.
Why deal with the hard stuff when you can show a solid record of harassing people based on what the computer told you to do.
It is no secret that police departments like to game their numbers. Not even really specific to police, plenty of professionals in positions of responsibility and life or death do it (Surgeons).
It's physically impossible to solve most of those "hard" crimes. No evidence, no witnesses, no recordings, no leads, nothing. Reality precludes the possibility of them being solved.
They're also not allowed to mass read text messages, listen to phone calls, get phone-call "metadata", run security-camera footage through "AI", do facial recognition, can't capture everybody's biometrics, etc. Oh and they can't profile people or perform stop/frisks, their hunches are biased, they can't walk dangerous neighbourhoods because they then "police" them unfairly, etc. They can't win.
At this point, short of magic and wishful thinking, I don't see what we want the police to actually do to solve these crimes. No wonder they "game their numbers" as you mention, that's all they're really allowed to do by us.
This article is a prime example of law enforcement passing the buck of responsibility for their own actions to a black box system by claiming that the system's output is "unbiased".
> “You may wonder why you were enrolled in this program,” the letter continues. “You were selected as a result of an evaluation of your recent criminal behavior using an unbiased, evidence-based risk assessment designed to identify prolific offenders in our community. As a result of this designation, we will go to great efforts to encourage change in your life through enhanced support and increased accountability.”
> Last year, a Tampa Bay Times investigation revealed that the Sheriff’s Office creates lists of people it considers likely to break the law based on criminal histories, social networks and other unspecified intelligence. The agency sends deputies to their homes repeatedly, often without a search warrant or probable cause for an arrest.
Now law enforcement gets to absolve themselves of accusations of bias or targetting because they assume that their computers can't be "biased", even though they only buy systems that confirm their own hunches about which people are criminals or not.
If anyone complains, they can say they were only doing what the supposedly unbiased system told them to do, after all.
Even if you haven't had any contact with the police, they can still put you on the list if they suspect you committed a crime. The manual they follow[0] uses a point-based system, and "suspicions of an offense" counts for half the points of actually committing the offense:
> • Half of the applicable point values are awarded for suspicions of an offense listed in 1-4.
Looking at page 13, they talk about their harassment list for at-risk youth, and mention these as 'identifiable risk factors':
- Hanging around in public
- Being a victim of personal crime
- Coming from broken homes
Page 72 show that they use records of children who experience physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, or witness domestic violence to put them on lists. Page 73 shows the "At-Risk Youth Spreadsheet" which is both terrifying and strikingly banal.
For example, we have known that broken homes lead to all sorts of problems a much greater proportion of the time for ages. And one of the things that becomes more likely is crime.
Not that that makes a computer algorithm’s predictions true. Just saying that it’s not terrifying to point out that there really are such things that increase risk that we are well aware of.
This in my opinion is a point that brings a lot of well-needed nuance to this issue. All or at least many of these facts or assumptions are all relatively reasonable or well-studied, that past criminal records and traumatic upbringings can lead to crime, but when put together under the dubious question of is the person a criminal can be greater than the sum of their parts. A lot of people come from broken homes or experience trauma and never commit a(nother) crime. The fact that these assumptions are standard practice has only legitimized taking a black-box algorithm at its word. It's not all just bias, but this kind of system certainly can incentivize it when making seemingly authoritative predictions.
The nuance doesn't matter, though. If you tell a cop that person A is 1% likely to be guilty of a crime, and person B is 3% likely to be guilty of a crime, they are going to focus their efforts on person B - despite both people being more likely than not, to be innocent.
When being harassed by police is itself sufficient to turn a person into a criminal, or ruin their life, you end up in a situation where everyone is doing what is 'reasonable', but leading to outcomes that are both unfair, and even negative overall, to society.
> When being harassed by police is itself sufficient to turn a person into a criminal, or ruin their life, you end up in a situation where everyone is doing what is 'reasonable', but leading to outcomes that are both unfair, and even negative overall, to society.
I agree. I just think that when critics read articles like the one in this post, they might walk away with the idea that all of these assumptions are fine and that critics of these systems are being alarmist. They might see these metrics as reasonable considering they reflect trends in actual criminals, but not understand that they are being used to predict criminal behavior, which like you mentioned with the two almost definitely innocent people is not the same thing.
This article about the program[1] directly addresses your assertion, specifically by one of the professors whose research was used to justify the program:
> The Sheriff’s Office says its program is based on research. It points to a 2015 study that found young people who had experienced multiple childhood traumas were at a higher risk of becoming serious, violent criminals than those who hadn’t.
> But David Kennedy, a renowned criminologist and professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice whose research is referenced in Pasco’s manual, said the associations between childhood trauma and criminal behavior are “extremely weak.” He said using them to make predictions about individuals “flies in the face of the science.”
> The methodology used by the Sheriff’s Office, he added, was likely to generate a large pool of children, the vast majority of whom would never get in serious trouble.
> “There’s nothing — absolutely nothing — that can be fed into even the most sophisticated algorithm or risk-assessment tool based on information available when someone is a child that can say this person is going to be a criminal later on, much less a serious prolific criminal,” he said.
"The Times found being named a Sheriff’s Office target could have serious consequences. Deputies showed up at homes at all hours of the day and night, writing tickets for violations like overgrown grass and making arrests for any reason they could find. By 2020, some 1,000 people had been ensnared. About 100 were 18 years old or younger."
"Since we have determined that you are a criminal, we will ensure that you are a criminal."
This is precisely why I voted against abolishing cash bail in California last year. Because they were going to replace it with some "algorithm." I hate cash bail, I think it's garbage, but this black box approach is worse.
Algorithms can be okay, as long as they are transparent. The problem with using things like AI is that the parameters or the algorithm are often hidden from the harmed individuals. And the law enforcement community can kick the can down the road by saying "but the software says...".
This is exactly why one of the lesser known provisions of GDPR (https://gdpr-info.eu/art-22-gdpr/) addresses "automated individual decision making" (although there are likely exceptions for government activity, but they may require a law).
The government understand what patterns lead to criminal behavior. They know which groups of people are currently at risk of crime because of those behaviors. And they have a limited budget. What to do?
Option 1: invest in programs to help prevent those behaviors. After school programs for at risk kids; better social support for single parents; job programs for the unemployed; and so on.
Option 2: invest in a sophisticated tracking system so that when those at risk do commit crimes, they can be caught and punished more easily. Harass them before any crimes have been committed. Bother them at home. Send letters saying that we know you're going to be a criminal. Make them hate the police.
To an outsider, it's not clear why option 2 is the choice made.
I will say I've seen these programs implemented (albeit in canada) and people get really salty about the bill. In Calgary they have a program to house people who are repeat callers on the healthcare system. Apparently the actuarials figured out it's cheaper to house them and let them destroy places than to have them calling 9-11 every day. But then the news gets a whiff that it's costing $100k a year to deal with one of these people and "good tax paying citzens" get salty because their bills and taxes keep going up and they struggle to get by.
Option 2 sounds really good except for the harassment. Tracking them = good. Sending letters = good. These people will hate the police no matter what, though.
> You were selected as a result of an evaluation of your recent criminal behavior using an unbiased, evidence-based risk assessment designed to identify prolific offenders in our community. As a result of this designation, we will go to great efforts to encourage change in your life through enhanced support and increased accountability
The premise seems innocent enough, sadly the total lack of transparency both in terms of selection criteria (and where the recipient is scored), and in terms of what does "support" or "accountability" really mean, besides a page of business cards, and the threat of increased scrutiny (i'm sure that's good for mental health!) completely undermines the execution.
Like many things, it seems the idea is good but half baked, and completely flops in execution. Yes give increased support to those most likely to (re)offend, but also don't make things worse in your attempt to do so...
If I were running this, it would include a brochure/coupon like offer from each support org (like "Free health consultation" or whatever). And it would include an offer of leniency consideration (from a judgment) for voluntarily participating.
"The Sheriff’s Office acknowledged that they want these “problem people” gone. Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco, the architect of the program, boasted that the goal was to predict which residents are likely to commit crimes and then “take them out.” In the words of a former Pasco County deputy, they were under orders to “[m]ake their lives miserable until they move or sue.”
If they really wanted to “change the path” of the folks they identified, perhaps they should be contacting them with letters instead that say congratulations we have secured you a 6 figure job with full benefits.
Nope instead the efforts aren’t to help anyone just to actively surveil them…assuming these systems were accurate and these were at risk folks, how exactly is surveillance helping to change their path?
Maybe the citizens should collectively send some letters to the individual LEO in charge congratulating them on being identified as the mostly likely to violate civil rights and placed in a project where they and their families will be under 24/7 surveillance.
This isn't akin to pre-crime, although it's still fine to opine that it's offensive in various other ways. The people in question are already criminals.
I think it's worth remembering that this is an elected position, and this sheriff is overwhelmingly popular, to the point where he ran unopposed in the last election. Per the Tampa Bay Times:
Nocco's uncontested re-election in 2016 is indicative of the sheriff's popularity, his political prowess and the county's continued tilt to the right, which puts Democrats at a decided disadvantage during general elections. Pasco's current registration numbers show the Republican Party with a 21,000-voter advantage over Democrats.
"I'm incredibly blessed that the citizens have so much faith in what we're doing,'' Nocco said about an uncontested re-election.
Note, this is legal behavior. They are their own little governments with the only repercussions being their next election cycle, and we all know what sort of folks we tend to vote for.
The news here is not what the police are doing; it's that the police are sending letters telling people what they are doing. I see that as good news.
If someone on the wrong path gets such a letter, I can imagine it making a positive difference for them. A lot of crime is really dumb and impulsive. The thought of someone behind you watching is a plausible deterrent.
A letter just might be enough reason to say "I'll stay home and lie low for a while". And that might be long enough to stop from making a serious mistake.
78 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 170 ms ] threadOr did you change positions to at the same time they did? I've noticed a lot of the "big government" "anti police state" (used with maximum sarcasm) folks suddenly start praising the things they spent a decade railing against now that its domestic white religious conservatives instead of foreign brown religious conservatives that are the target.
It might shock you to find out that the lockdowns were a wakeup call to the reality of policing for many of those "quotes" you stereotype.
And you should get a haircut."
Sometimes it looks like China and US are converging.
Maybe those in "the program" should be temporarily reeducated like the Uyghurs.
Amazing.
> The Pasco Sheriff’s Office keeps a secret list of kids it thinks could “fall into a life of crime” based on factors like whether they’ve been abused or gotten a D or an F in school, according to the agency's internal intelligence manual. The Sheriff’s Office assembles the list by combining the rosters for most middle and high schools in the county with records so sensitive, they’re protected by state and federal law. Four hundred and twenty kids are on the list ... The Sheriff’s Office said it does not inform students or their parents if they’ve been added to its list of potential future criminals.
This reminds me of the 1990 film Pump Up The Volume [0] where the school's dean was creating dossiers on singled out students, which was eventually portrayed as a criminal act in the end.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pump_Up_the_Volume_(film)
[0.0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100436/
Only a small percentage of it has to do with actually enforcing the law. The majority of it is curbing behaviors that threaten the status quo.
Whose views and what does it mean to “enforce views”? Are you talking about enforcing laws passed by the government or something else?
That's the cover story, and it no longer holds up.
Police show up to close out trouble tickets, not to enforce laws.
I have written about this specifically:
https://sneak.berlin/20200628/the-problem-with-police-in-ame...
The police in my area spend most of their time enforcing traffic laws, responding to domestic disturbances, etc. Murders are taken very seriously, regardless of who was murdered.
Based on my actual experience living with police in a boring suburbia, your article comes across as completely out of touch with reality due to no actual experience.
Have you considered that the reason there isn’t an explicit law that police have to respond to a given call is because there is immense political and therefore organizational pressure for them to do so? The county sheriff or the mayor would get voted out if that was a pattern in our local government and then police leaders would get fired.
I'm not even referring to the police though, the school's administration is violating the student's rights AIUI.
> a small percentage
What's your source for this? I'm very interested to see it, because this is an issue that I've been following for a few years and I haven't yet seen any data that supports this claim.
Here's a summary of the program and how the department feels about it and those they target[3]:
> The motivation of the program is more sinister than merely “fighting crime”: The Sheriff’s Office acknowledged that they want these “problem people” gone. Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco, the architect of the program, boasted that the goal was to predict which residents are likely to commit crimes and then “take them out.” In the words of a former Pasco County deputy, they were under orders to “[m]ake their lives miserable until they move or sue.”
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24363871
[2] https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/p...
[3] https://ij.org/case/pasco-predictive-policing/
Disgusting.
citation: https://sites.temple.edu/klugman/2020/07/20/do-40-of-police-...
edit: Someone posted an unredacted version of the 2018 version of the Pasco Sheriffs Office ILP manual in another comment. Appendix B lays out the specific criteria they use. It appears they tally up the number arrests or bookings (but "suspicions" are not counted). I'm not a criminal law expert, but it sounds like that just means the more times the cops haul you in the higher your score is, even if you're never convicted of any of it.
So my initial comment wasn't quite right. Their criteria provides even more incentive to not book fellow cops for misbehavior, as that happening too many times (even if nothing comes of it) would make them pop on this list.
KID!
YOU ABOUT TO BE MERKED BY HARD CORE CRIMINALS. WE KNOW. WE'RE THE COPS. SEE YOU ON THE CORONER SLAB.
It appears as if the sheriffs have been creating dossiers since 2011. Is sheriffs really this well funded in Florida? Where i am from, the sheriff is essentially the court agent, transporting prisoners, seizing defaulted property, serving some process, etc
If you are well informed, I am interested in learning about the analytics and tools they are using. The report mentions CompStat, Problem Oriented Policing and a methodology called SARA (scan assess respond analyze) as well as post-9/11 derived information sharing developments. They have ALPR and video feeds from some in their community as well they are using, and also mention in passing facial recognition to identify the unidentified.. uh whoever.
[0] - https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20412738-ilp_manual0...
> • Half of the applicable point values are awarded for suspicions of an offense listed in 1-4.
So you don't actually have to do anything to get a high score, you just need to be "suspected" of having done something.
#murders in Pasco County, FL in 2011: 13 #murders in Pasco County, FL in 2019: 14 annual links available here: http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/County-Profiles/Pasco.aspx
Now murder's only one crime, and I haven't done any sophisticated comparison (e.g. how does this compare to population growth, national or state trends, etc.). But it's not obvious that this is a program that is paying off.
If you're doing something this obnoxious, you'd better have a really big, positive payoff to point to.
One consideration about the 1990s crime drop should be the Lead-crime hypothesis[1], which basically refers to the banning and reduction of lead in fuel and consumer products in the 1970's bearing fruits a couple of decades later as people begin to mature in a less toxic environment. The information I have reviewed[2] about the US and even internationally[3] is quite compelling to me. Motherjones has collected all of this information.[4]
There could be a similar phenomenon (not necessarily environmental, but prop65 passed in 1986 and there is also the 1974 SDWA[5] with substantial amendments in 1986, and 1996, as well as numerous changes in the period about the 1990s) affecting the country after about ~2000 and again ~2010, but I do not know of any other information supporting this analysis.
[0] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-...
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis
[2] - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201...
[3] - https://pic.plover.com/Nevin/Nevin2007.pdf
[4] - https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposur...
[5] - http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking-wa...
It is no secret that police departments like to game their numbers. Not even really specific to police, plenty of professionals in positions of responsibility and life or death do it (Surgeons).
They're also not allowed to mass read text messages, listen to phone calls, get phone-call "metadata", run security-camera footage through "AI", do facial recognition, can't capture everybody's biometrics, etc. Oh and they can't profile people or perform stop/frisks, their hunches are biased, they can't walk dangerous neighbourhoods because they then "police" them unfairly, etc. They can't win.
At this point, short of magic and wishful thinking, I don't see what we want the police to actually do to solve these crimes. No wonder they "game their numbers" as you mention, that's all they're really allowed to do by us.
> “You may wonder why you were enrolled in this program,” the letter continues. “You were selected as a result of an evaluation of your recent criminal behavior using an unbiased, evidence-based risk assessment designed to identify prolific offenders in our community. As a result of this designation, we will go to great efforts to encourage change in your life through enhanced support and increased accountability.”
> Last year, a Tampa Bay Times investigation revealed that the Sheriff’s Office creates lists of people it considers likely to break the law based on criminal histories, social networks and other unspecified intelligence. The agency sends deputies to their homes repeatedly, often without a search warrant or probable cause for an arrest.
Now law enforcement gets to absolve themselves of accusations of bias or targetting because they assume that their computers can't be "biased", even though they only buy systems that confirm their own hunches about which people are criminals or not.
If anyone complains, they can say they were only doing what the supposedly unbiased system told them to do, after all.
> • Half of the applicable point values are awarded for suspicions of an offense listed in 1-4.
[0] https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20412738/ilp_manual01...
- Hanging around in public
- Being a victim of personal crime
- Coming from broken homes
Page 72 show that they use records of children who experience physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, or witness domestic violence to put them on lists. Page 73 shows the "At-Risk Youth Spreadsheet" which is both terrifying and strikingly banal.
For example, we have known that broken homes lead to all sorts of problems a much greater proportion of the time for ages. And one of the things that becomes more likely is crime.
Not that that makes a computer algorithm’s predictions true. Just saying that it’s not terrifying to point out that there really are such things that increase risk that we are well aware of.
When being harassed by police is itself sufficient to turn a person into a criminal, or ruin their life, you end up in a situation where everyone is doing what is 'reasonable', but leading to outcomes that are both unfair, and even negative overall, to society.
I agree. I just think that when critics read articles like the one in this post, they might walk away with the idea that all of these assumptions are fine and that critics of these systems are being alarmist. They might see these metrics as reasonable considering they reflect trends in actual criminals, but not understand that they are being used to predict criminal behavior, which like you mentioned with the two almost definitely innocent people is not the same thing.
If you think China's social credit system isn't terrifying, then I guess I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't find this terrifying.
> The Sheriff’s Office says its program is based on research. It points to a 2015 study that found young people who had experienced multiple childhood traumas were at a higher risk of becoming serious, violent criminals than those who hadn’t.
> But David Kennedy, a renowned criminologist and professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice whose research is referenced in Pasco’s manual, said the associations between childhood trauma and criminal behavior are “extremely weak.” He said using them to make predictions about individuals “flies in the face of the science.”
> The methodology used by the Sheriff’s Office, he added, was likely to generate a large pool of children, the vast majority of whom would never get in serious trouble.
> “There’s nothing — absolutely nothing — that can be fed into even the most sophisticated algorithm or risk-assessment tool based on information available when someone is a child that can say this person is going to be a criminal later on, much less a serious prolific criminal,” he said.
[1] https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/p...
"The Times found being named a Sheriff’s Office target could have serious consequences. Deputies showed up at homes at all hours of the day and night, writing tickets for violations like overgrown grass and making arrests for any reason they could find. By 2020, some 1,000 people had been ensnared. About 100 were 18 years old or younger."
"Since we have determined that you are a criminal, we will ensure that you are a criminal."
If I didn't know better I would think this story is from The Onion.
Pasco Predictive Policing: https://ij.org/case/pasco-predictive-policing/
This is one of the reasons why the Institute for Justice is at the top of my contributions list.
Option 1: invest in programs to help prevent those behaviors. After school programs for at risk kids; better social support for single parents; job programs for the unemployed; and so on.
Option 2: invest in a sophisticated tracking system so that when those at risk do commit crimes, they can be caught and punished more easily. Harass them before any crimes have been committed. Bother them at home. Send letters saying that we know you're going to be a criminal. Make them hate the police.
To an outsider, it's not clear why option 2 is the choice made.
I will say I've seen these programs implemented (albeit in canada) and people get really salty about the bill. In Calgary they have a program to house people who are repeat callers on the healthcare system. Apparently the actuarials figured out it's cheaper to house them and let them destroy places than to have them calling 9-11 every day. But then the news gets a whiff that it's costing $100k a year to deal with one of these people and "good tax paying citzens" get salty because their bills and taxes keep going up and they struggle to get by.
The premise seems innocent enough, sadly the total lack of transparency both in terms of selection criteria (and where the recipient is scored), and in terms of what does "support" or "accountability" really mean, besides a page of business cards, and the threat of increased scrutiny (i'm sure that's good for mental health!) completely undermines the execution.
Like many things, it seems the idea is good but half baked, and completely flops in execution. Yes give increased support to those most likely to (re)offend, but also don't make things worse in your attempt to do so...
If I were running this, it would include a brochure/coupon like offer from each support org (like "Free health consultation" or whatever). And it would include an offer of leniency consideration (from a judgment) for voluntarily participating.
Nope instead the efforts aren’t to help anyone just to actively surveil them…assuming these systems were accurate and these were at risk folks, how exactly is surveillance helping to change their path?
Maybe the citizens should collectively send some letters to the individual LEO in charge congratulating them on being identified as the mostly likely to violate civil rights and placed in a project where they and their families will be under 24/7 surveillance.
State harassment and terrorism
Of poor black people most likely
Nocco's uncontested re-election in 2016 is indicative of the sheriff's popularity, his political prowess and the county's continued tilt to the right, which puts Democrats at a decided disadvantage during general elections. Pasco's current registration numbers show the Republican Party with a 21,000-voter advantage over Democrats.
"I'm incredibly blessed that the citizens have so much faith in what we're doing,'' Nocco said about an uncontested re-election.
(https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/local/sheriff-nine-ot...)
In short, no improvement can be expected when the voters themselves support this kind of authoritarian overreach and curtailment of human rights.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/14/593204274...
Note, this is legal behavior. They are their own little governments with the only repercussions being their next election cycle, and we all know what sort of folks we tend to vote for.
> “We are committed to your success,"
Shudder.
If someone on the wrong path gets such a letter, I can imagine it making a positive difference for them. A lot of crime is really dumb and impulsive. The thought of someone behind you watching is a plausible deterrent.
A letter just might be enough reason to say "I'll stay home and lie low for a while". And that might be long enough to stop from making a serious mistake.