EU [Dutch] Police to stop using algorithm to predict violent behaviour - The system "ranked people with an Antillean, Moroccan and Somalian background as more high risk than the Dutch."

Photo: Depositphotos.com

Dutch police are to stop using an algorithm to predict if someone will show violent behaviour “immediately”, following an investigation earlier this week by website Follow the Money.

FTM revealed how the police are using a system that experts say is ethically and statistically poor to select people who are likely to be violent for a personally targeted approach.

Those selected for the Risicotaxatie Instrument Geweld (RTI-G) programme faced repressive measures that police hoped would stop them offending or offending again.

This could include more frequent arrests and body searches, the confiscation of money and expensive items and the involvement of social workers to stop brothers and sisters “going the same way”, FTM said.

People selected for the programme are warned that they face extra surveillance, leading to at least one subject to challenge the programme in court, and win.

The algorithm was based on factors such as age and sex, criminal history and prior contacts with the police. However, no checks had been carried out to assess if the system was prejudice free to make sure that people living in certain areas or with minority roots were not unfairly over-represented, FTM said.

An earlier version of the system, which police say they stopped using in 2017, automatically ranked people with an Antillean, Moroccan and Somalian background as more high risk than the Dutch.

Erasmus University professor Marc Schuilenburg told FTM the revised system is still “based on air” and is “completely unacceptable”.

There are no examples abroad of successful predictive policing technology at an individual level, he said.

The police first told FTM they would review the algorithm but have now decided to stop using it altogether because of “doubts about its usefulness”, the investigative website said.

Scandals

The Netherlands has been hit by a string of scandals involving algorithms which discriminate against certain groups in recent years and data protection watchdog Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP) has started monitoring their use.

Among the cases to hit the headlines is the unregulated use of algorithms by the Dutch tax office to create risk profiles of potential benefit fraudsters which led to thousands of people being wrongly ordered to pay back benefits.

Student finance body Duo was also caught up in an ethnic profiling scandal, after Investico revealed students with ethnic minority roots are “noticeably more often” accused of student loan or grant fraud than other students. The finance body’s checks are partly based on algorithms.

In May, it emerged that the foreign affairs ministry has been using a profiling system to analyse the risk posed by people applying for short-stay visas for the Schengen area since 2015.

Source (Archive)

 

[Soggy paper straw]

"This algorithm we built to notice things has noticed the things we pretend don't exist! Quick, pull the plug!"

If you're mining some data to see what characteristics appear to correlate with some kind of behaviour then you can't expect to eliminate the apparent correlation between characteristics and behaviour, otherwise you've invented an RNG.

A honest discussion of this would involve the actual statistics.

My first thought on the headline is "well, are they?" The article did not answer this basic question.

If in reality people of those ethnicities commit (e.g.) 20% of the crime, while being 5% of the population, then yes, they are more likely. I am sure the AI also predicted men to commit more crimes, or people (ie men) aged 16-40 to commit more crimes than any other age group.
If the AI predicts people of those ethnicities to commit around 20% of the crime, then it should be okay, right? If it predicts 50% of the crime, then it may be a problem(*) - however we cannot have this discussion because it would mean admitting they are more likely to commit a crime

*There is the possibility of nuance here: ethnicity seems a characteristic that can be easily used to predict crime, so why not use it for predicting that type of specific crime? The rest of the crime can be approached in another way.
My own view is that using AI to do anything with crime seems very sketchy. However I don't know how it actually worked so I should probably shut up

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

A honest discussion of this would involve the actual statistics.

My first thought on the headline is "well, are they?" The article did not answer this basic question.

If in reality people of those ethnicities commit (e.g.) 20% of the crime, while being 5% of the population, then yes, they are more likely. I am sure the AI also predicted men to commit more crimes, or people (ie men) aged 16-40 to commit more crimes than any other age group.
If the AI predicts people of those ethnicities to commit around 20% of the crime, then it should be okay, right? If it predicts 50% of the crime, then it may be a problem(*) - however we cannot have this discussion because it would mean admitting they are more likely to commit a crime

*There is the possibility of nuance here: ethnicity seems a characteristic that can be easily used to predict crime, so why not use it for predicting that type of specific crime? The rest of the crime can be approached in another way.
My own view is that using AI to do anything with crime seems very sketchy. However I don't know how it actually worked so I should probably shut up

AI would be a greater predictor at future criminality than any human. AI is only as good as the information it's fed. If it's given all information about a crime, it is more likely to come up with the correct answer than a human. I believe that AI should replace judges in court. Judges are apt to be heavily biased and influenced by the attorneys that surrounds them. An AI that sees reality (aka spits out the stats you posted) is a better judge of character than a judge who may have racial prejudices and thus sentence black man to higher sentences than a white man. An AI would have access to all court cases ever and base its sentencing on the history of all of those.

Given enough time, AI will be able to predict all possible futures and calculate the probability of which one coming to pass for a given situation.

 

[Soggy paper straw]

is a better judge of character than a judge who may have racial prejudices and thus sentence black man to higher sentences than a white man. An AI would have access to all court cases ever and base its sentencing on the history of all of those.

Thus, the AI would give a black man more time because that is the data it's given

My question is about what good would predicting crime do? It's not a question to be answered in a A&N thread tho lol

Your idea of having an impartial judge will never become real, even if we had a perfect AI. There are simply not enough prisons to convict everyone who commits crime and give them an adequate sentence

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

@Soggy paper straw
Black people receive more time because black people have higher recidivism rates than any other race.

The punishment system need to change to make any dent in the crime rates. The death penalty should be reinstated. It would reduce the amount of crime by leagues, especially in America.

Steal nonessential items three times in a span of a decade? Death penalty. If you're stealing more than three times in a decade, there's no chance you'll be rehabilitated.

Rape someone? Death penalty on contingency of a rape kit. Drug trafficking? Death penalty. Trafficking children? Death penalty. Raping/severely injuring an animal for fun? Death penalty. Singapore does it with surprising efficiency.
Normal people do not do this; people that do do not belong in this society.

 

[ロボ﹏§¤r﹏h¶rœ]

@Soggy paper straw
Black people receive more time because black people have higher recidivism rates than any other race.

The punishment system need to change to make any dent in the crime rates. The death penalty should be reinstated. It would reduce the amount of crime by leagues, especially in America.

Steal nonessential items three times in a span of a decade? Death penalty. If you're stealing more than three times in a decade, there's no chance you'll be rehabilitated.

Rape someone? Death penalty on contingency of a rape kit. Drug trafficking? Death penalty. Trafficking children? Death penalty. Raping/severely injuring an animal for fun? Death penalty. Singapore does it with surprising efficiency.
Normal people do not do this; people that do do not belong in this society.

You made sense with your 'replace judges with AI' comment, but this is just some totalitarian bollocks chuuni teenagers have wet dreams about. Both posts disregarded, sorry. For your information, Singapore executes mentally disabled people for the crime of being coaxed into carrying drugs. It's no better than 2023 Hong Kong when it comes to freedom. And they can't chew gum.

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

You made sense with your 'replace judges with AI' comment, but this is just some totalitarian bollocks chuuni teenagers have wet dreams about. Both posts disregarded, sorry. For your information, Singapore executes mentally disabled people for the crime of being coaxed into carrying drugs. It's no better than 2023 Hong Kong when it comes to freedom. And they can't chew gum.

"Singapore courts cited psychiatrists' testimony that he was not mentally disabled and had understood his actions at the time of his crime." Even black people with an IQ of LESS THAN 69 IN AFRICA understand what drug trafficking is.


If you can be coaxed into being a drug mule, consider what else you could be coaxed into. Murder? If you're that dangerous an individual, you should not be without adult supervision. Drugs destroy entire communities. Anyone who participates in dealing them are complicit, mentally disabled or not. Chris Chan raped his mother. He too deserves the death penalty. Just because you're mentally disabled does not absolve you of your crimes.

However, I am but a human. Perhaps the AI judge would see things differently and let them walk free.

I am open to having my mind changed on this topic. I need logical arguments against my position rather than appealing to emotion. If the dude had a caretaker, the caretaker should be sentenced to death for allowing the mentally disabled person out of their sight (much like a pitbull owner is responsible for the actions of their pitbull). But if the mentally disabled person is competent enough to live on their own, the mentally disabled person is 100% responsible for their own actions.

 

[ロボ﹏§¤r﹏h¶rœ]

.

How is that move to North Korea going? All you need to do is cross the border, no paperwork required.