| > Apophenia is the _human_ tendency to see patterns in random _data_. Predictive _analytics_ is a machine that pulls non-random patterns out of data and presents this as _information_. Yes. I know that. Apophenia is the correct term. Your fancy machine that predicts crime is only as good as the data it is fed and is made worse by the person who interprets the results. Both of these are easily biased. > Bias can be detected and removed. Just like how they removed the numerous biases, assumptions, and bad methodology that are well-known problems with breathalysers? Even if the model was theoretically accurate, the implementation can (and will) be wrong. You seem to be using a just-world assumption that doesn't have lazy, incompetent or malicious people. > Monitoring social media is common detective work It can be both. While these methods may be useful for going after stupid criminals, you're ignoring that it is also useful when targeting activists, political dissidents, etc. If you think this doesn't happen, you haven't been paying attention. You're problem is that you are assuming it is only "criminals" that are targeted, but you live in a world where, to use an obvious example, some people assume that any black person is a "criminal". |
Indeed. But remedies exist. Statisticians can examine the validity of the data, analysts and detectives can be trained to interpret the results correctly, and social scientists can point out the dangers of relying solely on computer systems.
I have no strong view for or against breathalysers. I'll concede that there may be some errors in those tests. Does that completely invalidate these tools in judging if someone is too drunk to drive and may cause harm to self or others? Should we only opt for rigorous methods like drawing blood samples? My view is: no, we should not. These are valuable tools that work for the large majority of times and help save lives (at the inevitable cost of some errors and inconvenience).
In my world I believe in just intentions. Breathalysers are not introduced to imprison sober drivers, they are to combat drunk ("lazy, incompetent or malicious") drivers on our roads.
These methods are useful for catching the savvy criminals too. I am not ignoring that these systems are also useful to target activists and political dissidents. That's basically what they were build for in the first place (well, that and the terrorists, see DARPA LifeLog). It's just now that these tools are adopted by local Police departments.
A weapon stick can be used to subdue a suspect through non-lethal force, and it can be used to choke a peaceful protester. It will succeed in both tasks. It's not a stupid ineffective tool we should take away, because it can be used in bad ways. We should make sure to avoid the bad usage, and provide police with the best weapon stick possible for the good usage.
You assume that this system will be used to justify police brutality and that this system will be used by people who think that any black person is a "criminal". I have a higher opinion of the people who join the police. I rather reserve such judgment to the criminals themselves.