Thought police, in George
Orwell’s dystopian 1949 work, “1984,” were government
authorities tasked with rooting out thought crimes – or, the basic mental
patterns that were believed to be the genesis for criminal actions – using
omnipresent surveillance technologies and intelligence gathering techniques.
Supposedly,
that was fiction.
Yet:
PredPol is making quite a wave among law enforcement. So is crime mapping. So
is AlSight. What are these? In short, technology that fits right in with
Orwell’s narrative.
PredPol,
short for Predictive Policing, is cloud-based software that takes police
incident reports, sifts them through an algorithm and then spits out an
analysis of where crimes are most likely to occur on a given shift – and which
types of criminal activities are probably going to take place in a given hour.
The logic is that officers reporting for their shifts can then use that data
and conduct more common sense patrols.
As
Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck said: “I’m not
going to get more money. I’m not going to get more cops. I have to be better at
using what I have, and that’s what predictive policing is about.”
Crime mapping, meanwhile,
pinpoints the geographical locations of various types of past criminal
activities as a way of directing the path of police patrols for the present and
future – a sort of intelligence-gathering system. A heavy drug crime area? Send
in the drug task force members to conduct undercover buy operations. A rash of
home burglaries in the neighborhood? Add extra patrol cars to that part of
town.
AlSight, created by the
Texas-based BRS Labs, is a bit different – and more Orwellian. This software
works in conjunction with data captured on surveillance cameras to first, track
and determine what constitutes normal behavior for the area of spy coverage –
and second, alert and report those behaviors that step outside the parameters
of what’s been determined as normal. The touted beauty of AlSight is that it
can take on a human-type consciousness to compare and contrast what’s normal –
travelers boarding a train, for example – versus what isn’t – a passenger
dropping a bag by a trash barrel and walking away, for instance – and alert the
authorities accordingly.
And
all three programs are supposed to keep the nation safer – the communities
freer of crime. Santa Cruz, Calif, reported a double-digit drop in its crime rate
since implementing PredPol. Shreveport just became the
second city in Louisiana to adopt crime mapping and call on citizens to help
locate the suspect who stole a gun out of a police officer’s patrol car. San Fernando
Valley
reported substantial drops in burglaries since launching its predictive
policing program in 2011. And AlSight has been a monitoring tool of choice for some time for
San Francisco’s Municipal Transit Authority, for select spots in Houston,
Texas, and for water treatment plants in El Paso.
But
the technology brings some queasiness – and constitutional concerns.
Since
when is the default operating mode for law enforcement to assume Americans are
guilty? Isn’t that, in essence, what these programs, with their catch-all
surveillance, and their computerized analytics, are doing – collecting data on
citizens who’ve yet to be charged or even suspected of crimes, and then placing
at least some of them under targeted police watch?
Innocent
until proven guilty used to be the guiding law enforcement light in our
republic. Thoughts are not actions – thoughts are never crimes.
I much prefer ""Peace Officer" to "Law Enforcement".
ReplyDelete